Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Purchase Tax

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent he has approved an arrangement whereby a complete set of components for a Fair-thorpe Zeta sports car is sold at £878 free of Purchase Tax, whereas the assembled car sells at £1,482, including Purchase Tax of £430; to what extent articles other than motor cars and, in particular, television sets, radios, trombones, and refrigerators are also Purchase Tax free when sold in sets of components; what guidance Customs and Excise have given in these matters; and whether he will make a statement.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Anthony Barber): My right hon. Friend's approval is not needed for arrangements which are governed by the provisions of Purchase Tax law. The liability to tax of articles sold in parts, and of the parts themselves, are dealt with in the Notices which the Customs and Excise issue to traders.

Mr. Nabarro: As nobody had thought in 1940–41 of selling, for example, a motor car or a refrigerator Purchase Tax free on the basis of a relatively small number of largely prefabricated units, and as the device to which attention is drawn in the Question is obviously an effort to evade Purchase Tax, would my hon. Friend look at this matter very carefully with a view to the revision of the Statute and the prevention of further evasion?

Mr. Barber: I have noted what my hon. Friend said. He has raised several points. In cases like this, the Customs and Excise keep a watch on the extent to

which this sort of thing happens, and if the scale of the operations becomes important from the revenue point of view, we might well have to consider changing the law. In the debate on the Finance Bill, 1956, this sort of question was dealt with by the then Financial Secretary in connection with home-built cars, when he moved an Amendment, which the House approved, to cover the instance of a car which was assembled either out of a kit which had been bought or from a complete collection of parts made or picked up by the man who was doing the job. I will certainly bear in mind what my hon. Friend has said.

Iron and Steel Holding and Realisation Agency

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will state the inventoral value in 1958, or later convenient date, of the twelve remaining nationalised steel companies, out of the sixty-two companies for which the Iron and Steel Holding and Realisation Agency was made statutorily responsible in 1953; having regard to sax years' operations by the Iron and Steel Holding and Realisation Agency, when the rest of these companies are to be de-nationalised; and whether he will state the policy of the Government in regard to existing investment by the Iron and Steel Holding and Realisation Agency in steel companies already de-nationalised.

Mr. Barber: The value of the net assets of the Agency's remaining subsidiaries at 30th September, 1958, was £89·6 million. As for the remainder of my hon. Friend's Question, I have no statement to make at present, but I can assure my hon. Friend that the Government has these matters under very active consideration.

Mr. Nabarro: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that I contested the last General Election, at least in measure, upon an undertaking to complete the denationalisation of the steel industry at a very early date? As six years have elapsed since 1953, should not we be given an unequivocal assurance that the remaining £90 million worth of publicly-owned assets will be sold to private enterprise interests at the earliest moment?

Mr. Barber: I explained that this is now under very active consideration. I will certainly bear in mind what my hon. Friend said.

Mr. Marquand: Will not the Minister correct the figure given by his hon. Friend? Is it not true that in the wholly-owned subsidiaries of the Iron and Steel Holding and Realisation Agency alone, leaving Richard Thomas out of account, some £200 million of share and loan capital is still held by the State?

Mr. Barber: I have not immediately to hand detailed figures, but it is certainly true that the value of the net assets of the remaining subsidiaries, which I gave as £89·6 million, is not the total amount which is in the hands of the Agency, because it holds other assets.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Nabarro. Question No. 3.

Mr. Nabarro: What is the total amount?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I called the hon. Member for the next Question.

Mr. Nabarro: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I did not hear you.

Mr. Marquand: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will refuse approval to all proposals of the Iron and Steel Holding and Realisation Agency to offer for sale any securities of its wholly-owned subsidiaries until it has disposed of all the remaining securities which it holds in companies of which it has already sold ordinary shares.

Mr. Barber: No, Sir. Different considerations apply to the two categories of sales and it would not be either logical or necessarily advantageous to adopt the right hon. Member's suggestion.

Mr. Marquand: Is the hon. Member aware that the reports of the Agency show that it now holds £125 million of prior charge securities in these subsidiary companies and that it has advanced £40 million to the Steel Company of Wales? Have not the Government themselves advanced about £50 million to Colvilles, which is also a semi-denationalised company? In view of the large holdings by the State, on the basis of which ordinary shareholders have been able to make large profits and fantastic capital gains, would not he now do what his hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) almost invited him to do and say that

denationalisation has failed and stop it from now on?

Mr. Nabarro: No, I did not say that.

Mr. Barber: I am sure that was not a correct interpretation of what my hon. Friend said.

Mr. Nabarro: Hear, hear.

Mr. Barber: As I replied in answer to my hon. Friend's supplementary question, this is a matter which we have very much in mind.

Mr. Lawson: Will the Economic Secretary bear in mind and read the report which appeared in the independent newspaper, the Spectator, where it is urged that if the Iron and Steel Board is to do its job properly on behalf of the nation, a substantial part of the steel industry should remain in public hands?

Mr. Barber: I have not read that, but I will certainly look at it.

Mr. Marquand: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will present to Parliament a full report, covering the years 1953 to 1959, of the discharge by the Iron and Steel Holding and Realisation Agency of the duty laid upon them by Section 18 of the Iron and Steel Act, 1953, to promote the efficient direction of their subsidiaries.

Mr. Barber: No, Sir. The way in which the Agency has discharged its statutory duties is described in its successive Reports.

Mr. Marquand: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that we have had nothing at all from the Agency over five and a half years except financial statements, that there has been no indication whatsoever in the Agency's Reports of how it is managing its subsidiary undertakings? Is he aware that in my constituency the Agency disgracefully neglected the welfare of a company and quite recently closed it down and that we have no assurance that the future of other wholly-owned subsidiaries of the Agency remaining on Tees-side will not be similarly neglected and closed down? Are we never to get information which the Act requires the Agency to provide?

Mr. Barber: Regarding the works in the right hon. Gentleman's constituency, I think I am right in saying that that


subject was fully debated some time ago when my predecessor was Economic Secretary. So far as I know, the information which is given is in accordance with the terms of the Act. If the right hon. Gentleman will let me know of any way in which it is not, I shall be glad to consider that.

Mr. Marquand: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that the words in my Question are taken directly from the Act,
to promote the efficient direction of their subsidiaries."?
That does not mean that the Agency is merely to try to sell its subsidiaries, but is to try to run them like proper business enterprises. Surely it follows that, after five and a half years, Parliament is entitled to have a full report on the production activities, employment and practical business aspects of these subsidiaries which are wholly owned by the people.

Mr. Nabarro: Why not debate I.S.H.R.A. on a Supply Day?

Mr. Barber: This is a matter which cannot be debated at Question Time. The Agency has discharged its functions as a holding company, and as provided for in the Act, through the appointment of directors who are held responsible for day-to-day management and through the supervision of the financial affairs of the subsidiary companies.

Mr. Marquand: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the hon. Gentleman's reply, I beg to give notice that I shall endeavour to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Purchase Tax

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer having regard to trade dislocation expected in the first quarter of 1960 as in earlier years, due to buyers holding off purchasing articles in the shops subject to Purchase Tax in anticipation of Purchase Tax reductions in the April Budget, whether he will make an announcement concerning Purchase Tax reductions or abolition affecting any or all of the articles concerned, on 1st January, 1960.

Mr. Barber: No, Sir.

Mr. Nabarro: Is that the conclusive and final statement from the Treasury? Is my hon. Friend's reply to be inter-

preted to mean that there will not be any announcement of any description in connection with Purchase Tax reductions—I repeat "reductions"—until April, 1960, when the Chancellor brings in his Budget?

Mr. Barber: The Answer which I gave, which was "No, Sir", was very carefully considered.

Mr. Nabarro: Was it conclusive and final?

Income Tax (Schedule A)

Mr. Gurden: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many owner- occupiers receiving National Assistance grants are paying some of this money to the Inland Revenue in the form of Schedule A tax.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Sir Edward Boyle): I regret that this information is not available.

Mr. Gurden: Does my hon. Friend think it fair that pensioners and those living on small incomes should continue to pay Schedule A tax which in effect means that they subsidise those who are better off?

Sir E. Boyle: The owner-occupier in receipt of National Assistance would not be liable to tax unless he had other income, including the net Schedule A assessment on his house, amounting in the year in question to at least £180 for a single person and £300 for a married couple, and I believe that such cases are rare.

Mr. Gurden: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many old-age pensioners are paying full Schedule A tax as demanded.

Sir E. Boyle: I regret the information is not available.

Mr. Gurden: Does my hon. Friend realise that people who have paid, say, £500, for a house are having to pay Schedule A tax and other people, who paid £1,000 for their dwelling, pay none at all?

Sir E. Boyle: I know the concern felt by my hon. Friend about this matter. I have looked carefully into these facts. I believe it is hardly possible for a person over 65 to be liable to tax if his


only income, apart from his retirement pension, is the annual value of his own house.

Mr. Woodburn: Can the Minister make clear to any old-age pensioner involved that he is entitled to recover this tax and that he is not liable to the tax, according to the figures which the hon. Gentleman has already given?

Sir E. Boyle: Yes. For example, a single woman aged from 60 to 65 with nothing but her pension and her house would be liable to tax only if the net annual value of the house exceeded £50, but I believe that there are far fewer cases of this kind than is generally realised.

Mr. Cleaver: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many taxpayers are required to pay tax based on an estimate of their income made by the Inland Revenue.

Sir E. Boyle: I regret that this information is not available.

Mr. Cleaver: Is my hon. Friend aware that the owner-occupier who receives no rent income incurs heavy expense and still receives Schedule A notices? Does not he agree that the activities of efficient Inland Revenue officers would become positively popular if they adopted as their motto, "No income, no tax"?

Sir E. Boyle: In the case of owner-occupied property it has long been the principle of our taxation law that Schedule A assessment has to be made on an estimate of the amount of rent which the property would be worth were it let, taking one year with another. I realise the concern on this matter of many of my hon. Friends, but I think that we should consider carefully before going back on a very long established principle.

Mr. Paget: Is there any moral reason at all why property investment should not be taxed like any other investment and is not the utilisation by hon. Members opposite of the old-age pensioner as a "stalking horse" rather unsavoury?

Sir E. Boyle: I have always been told that at Question Time it is not wise to express views on moral issues, but I have no doubt that there will be future occasions which will prove suitable for

such debates, when I shall look forward to a speech from the hon. and learned Gentleman.

Mr. Cleaver: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give the owner-occupier similar facilities in dealing with his Schedule A tax as are given to industrial enterprises.

Sir E. Boyle: I am not clear exactly what point my hon. Friend has in mind. If he will let me know, I shall be glad to consider it.

Mr. Cleaver: Is my hon. Friend aware that a trading limited company is allowed to deduct its net Schedule A assessment from its profits before paying Schedule D tax which, in effect, means that it pays no Schedule A tax, and does he agree that similar rights are not offered to the owner-occupier?

Sir E. Boyle: A company which owns business premises is allowed to deduct Schedule A assessment when computing its profits under Schedule D. I will write to my hon. Friend about the case he has in mind, but we must always draw a distinction between what is a trading company and what is, after all, a basic necessity of life, namely, housing.

Mr. Gurden: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will impose Schedule A tax on owners of caravans to bring about equality with house holders.

Sir E. Boyle: My right hon. Friend has noted my hon. Friend's suggestion.

Mr. Gurden: Will not my hon. Friend be a little forthcoming in his Answers to these Questions about Schedule A tax? Is he aware that, year after year, the Answer to such Questions is that the Government cannot anticipate the Budget statement. Would it not be fairer to say frankly that this matter will not be considered until the time of the next Budget statement?

Sir E. Boyle: It has always been the custom that one does not promise or rule out on Budget matters at this time, but takes pleasure in giving a neutral reply. I hope that my hon. Friend will remember that caravan dwellers form a very small part of the total population and that the majority of them hope to move into a house after a few years.

Mr. Fletcher: Is not there something anomalous in the attitude of hon. Gentlemen opposite in wanting, at one and the same time, to abolish Schedule A tax and to extend it?

Sir E. Boyle: I do not think there is anything unreasonable about hon. Members on this side of the House taking an interest in Schedule A taxation and wanting it to be as fair and as rational as can be devised. It is on that basis that I am trying to answer the questions put to me this afternoon.

Mr. Lipton: Will the hon. Gentleman resist the demand from his hon. Friends to impose additional taxation, which is what this Question is suggesting?

Sir E. Boyle: I think that the questions asked from hon. Members on this side of the House are as well phrased as most supplementary questions asked by hon. Members opposite. I have no complaint to make, and therefore I do not think that the supplementary question asked by the hon. Gentleman adds very much.

Premium Bonds

Mr. MacColl: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will arrange that all notices and advertisements concerning Premium Bonds include the information that the odds against winning a prize are over 10,000 to one.

Mr. Barber: No, Sir.

Mr. MacColl: Does not the Economic Secretary think it desirable that savers who are trying to compare one channel of investment with another ought to have the facts put fully before them by those who are asking for the investment? Should not the Government set a good example in this matter in placing the facts in perspective?

Mr. Barber: I agree that an investor should consider all the facts relating to each of the possible investments that he may make. But an isolated figure like the one which the hon. Member suggests would be misleading because investors rarely purchase one bond in one draw. I might mention that a booklet about Premium Bonds was recently issued by the Post Office. It deals with all these matters in considerable detail and sets out fairly the possible odds.

Mr. Snow: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it was in a letter written by the Chancellor to me that the fact was disclosed that the odds against winning a prize are about 11,000 to 1? Having myself purchased Premium Bonds when the odds were about 2,000 to 1, and wishing nothing but well for the scheme as a whole, might I ask if it would not be a good thing to ensure that more prizes are offered so as to reassure the public that this is a reasonable proposition in which to enter?

Mr. Barber: The prizes are related to the rate of interest, which has not been changed since the scheme was started. As to the odds, I would repeat that all the relevant odds are referred to frankly and honestly in this booklet which has been published by the Post Office.

Mr. Hendry: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will in crease the maximum holding of Premium Bonds to 1,000 to give a greater incentive to accumulative buying and retention.

Mr. Barber: No, Sir. The great majority of holdings are still small and the present limit is not frustrating any appreciable volume of genuine small savings.

Mr. Hendry: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will give instructions to the Estate Duty Office to accept Premium Bonds in lieu of cash on payment of death duties exigible on the death of the holder of the bonds.

Mr. Barber: This proposal could not be implemented under the terms of issue of the present Bonds. However, I understand that my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General is prepared in future to allow encashment of Bonds before probate for the purpose of paying death duties. This should be a help in the type of case my hon. Friend has in mind.

Post-war Credits

Mr. Fletcher: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is now in a position to take the necessary steps to eccelerate the repayment of post-war credits.

Sir E. Boyle: I regret that I cannot yet make a statement about accelerating the repayment of post-war credits.

Mr. Fletcher: Why cannot the Financial Secretary do so? Is he not in a position under the existing legislation to bring additional classes of hardship into the category Which entitles them to repayment of post-war credits? In view of the present state of national prosperity, why is he not prepared to meet these cases of hardship?

Sir E. Boyle: I explained this point last week in reply to two supplementary questions asked by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan). I have no further statement to make at present beyond what my right hon. Friend has already said on the subject.

Subsidies and Allowances

Mr. McKay: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount of subsidies paid to farmers, and the value of the investment and initial allowances they received in tax relief, in the year 1958; the value of the initial and investment allowances paid to the National Coal Board in the same year; and the value of the special investment allowance paid to the shipbuilding industry for 1958.

Sir E. Boyle: The amount of subsidies paid to farmers in the financial year 1958–59 is estimated at £238·8 million. The value in terms of tax relief of the investment and initial allowances received by farmers in the same year is estimated at £5 million. As regards the third part of the Question, I cannot disclose information about the fax affairs of a particular concern. I assume that the fourth part of the Question relates to the shipping industry; the value in terms of tax relief for the year 1958–59 of the investment allowance given for capital expenditure on new ships is estimated at £22 million.

Mr. McKay: I observe that the Financial Secretary has not given any figures relating to any benefit received by the mining industry in the form of investment allowances or anything else. Is it not rather peculiar that the Exchequer is helping industry throughout the country in various ways, by means of grants and so on, and yet the Coal Board is being charged £32 million by way of interest? In view of the grants given to the fishing, farming and horticultural industries, is not it time that grants were given to the mining industry?

Sir E. Boyle: We cannot debate the mining industry, and I cannot go beyond the steps which the Leader of the House explained when winding up the debate on the Address. The Government are taking three steps: first, the provision of finance to enable large stocks of coal to be held; second, the re-examination of the power station oil contracts, which leads to an increase in coal consumption; and third, a check on opencast production and its virtual elimination by 1965. I cannot go beyond those three points.

Mr. Jay: Would the Financial Secretary agree that in principle there is just as good an economic case for national support for home-produced fuel as there is for home-produced food?

Sir E. Boyle: I should say there was certainly a good case for special measures to encourage productive efficiency in the country, which is the whole point of the investment allowance. On the point relating to the coal industry, I cannot go beyond what I have said.

National Coal Board

Mr. McKay: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer his estimate of the total sum of money to be paid by the Exchequer to the cotton industry under the Cotton Industry Act, 1959; and whether he will give a similar grant to the National Coal Board who are having to undertake similar reorganisation in the face of economic difficulties.

Mr. Barber: Given a favourable response from the industry, the cost might be of the order of £30 million over five years. As for the second part of the Question, I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the Answer he received from my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power on 30th November.

Mr. McKay: Can the Minister explain the difference in the attitude which he has shown, for example, to the cotton industry and the attitude which is shown to the National Coal Board? Is not the mining industry as important to the country as a whole as the cotton industry or any other industry? Why not give the mining industry some help instead of penalising it to the extent of £32 million a year, which is equal to 3s. a ton?

Mi. Barber: The two cases are not comparable. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Perhaps I can explain. The grants to the cotton firms are intended as a stimulus to induce them to undertake the necessary investment, three-quarters of which they have to finance themselves at higher interest rates than those at which the National Coal Board borrows from the Exchequer. The Coal Board, on the other hand, is in a different position. It looks to the Exchequer for all its capital requirements.

Mr. Peyton: Will my hon. Friend make it clear to hon. Members opposite that the Coal Board has had most favoured treatment? In fact, it has been favoured to the point of being pampered. Will my hon. Friend urge upon the Coal Board, through his right hon. Friend, that one of the best ways for the Board to help itself is to diminish its large stocks?

Mr. Barber: The question of stocks, as I believe my hon. Friend knows, is one of the most important matters before the Coal Board at present.

Mr. S. Silverman: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the figure of £30 million which he quoted was the figure estimated at the time that the Cotton Industry Bill was going through Parliament; that subsequent events have shown that the expenditure is likely to be considerably more, probably more than double; and that of that sum the great bulk is not paid for re-equipment, as he implied in his answer, but is paid for compensation for the closing of mills and the destruction of machinery, which would seem to many of us to be strictly analogous to the closing of pits?

Mr. Barber: The payments under the Cotton Industry Act are, in the first place, to assist in removing excess capacity in the cotton industry and, in the second place, grants to encourage re-equipment in firms. With regard to removing excess capacity, the cost will be £11 million, not including anything provided for finishers, because that point is not yet settled, as the hon. Gentleman is aware. As to the second aspect, we consider that, together with the £11 million which I have mentioned, the total cost will be £30 million. We have looked into this matter again in the light of the Question and, as far as I know, it is not necessary to give a different answer.

Civil Service Clerical Class (Examination)

Mr. Collard: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will accept the possession of a school certificate or a higher certificate as giving exemption from the written examination for entry into the clerical class of the home Civil Service.

Sir E. Boyle: I assume that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the competitions for posts in the clerical class open to candidates between 20 and 39. For these competitions, the Civil Service Commissioners do not consider that examinations taken as far back as 1950 or earlier would provide them with a sufficiently up-to-date measure of the candidate's mental capacity.

Mr. Collard: Is my hon. Friend aware that I have a case of a man who has the school certificate with seven credits and a distinction, and the higher certificate, but who must nevertheless sit for the written examination because he has not got the G.C.E. at O level? Is this not rather unreasonable and discouraging?

Sir E. Boyle: I see the point, but, accepting the fact that some time limit is necessary, I still think that 1951 was reasonable as the earliest date to accept. After all, an examination consisting of three papers of 1½ hours each is not a very strong demand to be made of someone who is applying for a post in which, if he is successful, he will be employed until reaching retirement age.

Motor Cars (Purchase Tax)

Mr. Peyton: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what he anticipates will be the yield of the Purchase Tax on motor cars during the current financial year.

Mr. Barber: My right hon. Friend's Budget estimate included £145 million in respect of Purchase Tax on motor cars.

Mr. Peyton: Will my hon. Friend convey a message to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that many of us place such reliance upon the Chancellor's unchallengeable integrity that we believe he will find it impossible to touch even one penny of this money until he has considerably increased the road programme?

Mr. Barber: I will certainly convey i hat message to my right hon. Friend.

Cheques (Stamp Duty)

Mr. Robert Cooke: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what sum would be gained by the Revenue if the Stamp Duty on cheques were increased by one penny.

Sir E. Boyle: About £3½ million in a full year.

Mr. Cooke: Is my hon. Friend aware that this duty was last increased by 1d. by his illustrious predecessor, Sir Michael Hicks Beach, in 1902? Will he bear in mind that an increase in the duty would provide him with funds to reduce considerably Surtax, death duties and other iniquitous forms of taxation?

Sir E. Boyle: This certainly is a question to which I will answer that I cannot anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget statement.

Mr. Jay: Does the Financial Secretary notice the enthusiasm for increased taxation coming from hon. Members opposite?

New Bank Notes (Design)

Mr. Mapp: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recommendations he has received in regard to the design for future bank notes; what recommendations he proposes to make to the Bank of England; and if he will undertake consultations with the appropriate representatives of blind people to ensure that any recommendations take into account their special requirements.

Mr. Ronald Bell: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will ask the Bank of England to bear in mind, when changing the design of Bank of England notes, the needs and difficulties of blind people.

Mr. Barber: A number of suggestions regarding the design of bank notes have been received and I have been assured by the Bank of England that these are being given due consideration. As I have indicated in replies to previous Questions, the problem as it affects blind people is being discussed by the Bank of England with St. Dunstan's and the Royal National Institute for the Blind.
I understand that a meeting for this purpose is taking place this afternoon.

Mr. Mapp: Will the Economic Secretary bear in mind that blind people individually and collectively are apprehensive about the move that has taken place? Will he undertake to ensure that the unique claims of these people on all Members of the House have the same priority as any commercial claims that there may be in connection with these bank notes? Secondly, will the hon. Gentleman indicate whether a report can be made of the ultimate negotiations, and whether in that report the willing approval of the representatives of blind people can be shown? Thirdly, can he say whether a specimen print has been made of the £1 notes, and if so, will he defer further printing?

Mr. Barber: I do not know what the answer is to the last part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, but I am conscious of the importance of this matter. I have myself received a considerable number of letters on the subject, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Bank of England will certainly do all it can to help.

Mr. Bell: Would it not have been better to have consulted the blind organisations first, rather than make the announcement first that the sizes will be assimilated and then to consult the organisations?

Mr. Barber: I can only say that this matter was considered by the Bank of England originally, and I hope that from now on it may be possible to find a solution to the difficulties.

Mr. H. Hynd: If there is any insuperable difficulty in making the notes in different sizes, will the hon. Gentleman consider one of them being made with a serrated edge to enable people to distinguish between notes of different denominations just as we are able to distinguish between different coins?

Mr. Barber: I am sure that the Bank of England will be happy to consider any suggestions.

Sir H. Oakshott: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that there is genuine feeling about this problem of the different sizes of these notes? If it is not possible to change the design and size, will he


examine the possibility of incorporating an embossment of some sort on the notes which will make them more readily distinguishable?

Mr. Barber: My hon. Friend has already spoken to me about this matter and I know how concerned he is. I can promise him that his views will be made known to the Bank of England.

British Film Institute (Grant)

Mrs. White: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if his attention has been drawn to the recent statement of the Chairman of the British Film Institute, pointing out that an offer has been made by the film company concerned of valuable material connected with the film productions of the late Sir Alexander Korda and Mr. Vincent Korda for which no proper storage or display space is available; and what attention has been paid to this and cognate problems affecting the National Film Archive in deciding on the amount of grant made available to the Institute.

Sir E. Boyle: Yes, Sir. As the offer was made only very recently, it could not have been taken into account in fixing the grant-in-aid to the Institute in the current year even if it were right to do so. As regards next year's grant, I must ask the hon. Lady to await the Estimates.

Mrs. White: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the present circumstances it is necessary to store this material either in a basement in London or in a wooden hut at Aston Clinton? Is he also aware that much of the material in the National Film Archive cannot be made available to students because there is no staff for cataloguing?

Sir E. Boyle: I am aware that this is a difficult matter where controversies have not been resolved. I am considering it carefully.

National Symphony Orchestra

Mr. Cordle: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that the National Symphony Orchestra, which receives a grant from the Arts Council, is in danger of losing many of its skilled musicians because of the low salaries it is obliged to pay; and whether he will now revise his previous policy and ear-

mark a sufficient proportion of his grant in aid to the Arts Council for the assistance of this orchestra, in order that its present artistic standards may be maintained.

Sir E. Boyle: No, Sir. As I indicated in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) on 26th November, my right hon. Friend is not prepared to earmark any proportion of the Arts Council's grant for any purpose whatever.

Mr. Cordle: While thanking the Financial Secretary for his reply, may I express the hope that financial aid for the national provincial symphony orchestras will be made available as soon as possible?

Sir E. Boyle: The policy has always been that the Arts Council shall have complete discretion in the distribution of its grants, but I can assure my hon. Friend, having heard the Bournemouth Symphony Orchestra many years ago give one of the first performances of Walton's Violin Concerto, that I am well aware of its importance.

British Museum Reading Room

Mr. K. Robinson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has now received proposals from the trustees of the British Museum with regard to an extension of the hours during which either the Museum as a whole, or the Reading Room, is open to the public; and what reply he has made.

Mr. Pitman: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in view of the fact that the sum which has already accrued to the British Museum as its share of the estate of the late Bernard Shaw is £163,924 10s. 5d., and in view of the fact that under the terms of the will this bequest was made in acknowledgment of the value to the testator of his daily resort to the Reading Room at the beginning of his career, whether he will inform the trustees of the British Museum that he will now view sympathetically proposals from them calculated to improve the services of the Reading Room.

Mr. Fletcher: asked the Secretary to the Treasury what proposals he has now received from the trustees of the British Museum for keeping the Reading


Room open in the evenings for the benefit of students who otherwise cannot make use of its facilities; and what assistance he will give to the implementation of these proposals.

Sir E. Boyle: I understand that the British Museum Trustees have for some time been considering the possibility of some measure of evening opening of the Reading Room and that on their directions a scheme is being prepared which will shortly be submitted to the Treasury.

Mr. K. Robinson: As the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that any scheme would be sympathetically considered, when may a favourable reply be expected by the Trustees?

Sir E. Boyle: I cannot give a definite date this afternoon, but I can promise the hon. Gentleman that there will not be any unnecessary delay.

Mr. Fletcher: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the scheme proposed is likely to suggest opening the Reading Room of the Museum for only three days a week? Does not he think that, while this matter is being dealt with, the necessary financial arrangements should be made to enable the Reading Room to be open in the evenings for five days a week?

Sir E. Boyle: I cannot add more this afternoon. I, too, have read the references which have appeared in the Press. The Government know that hon. Members on both sides attach importance to this. As soon as a proposition is made, we shall look at it very carefully in all its aspects.
Later—

Mr. Pitman: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I think that the hon. Member was not here when Question No. 40 was answered. It was answered with Question No. 24. If the hon. Member was here at that time, I did not see him.

Mr. Pitman: On a point of order. May we have your ruling, Mr. Speaker, about the question of relationship between different Questions? As I see it, I had no reason to suppose that the two Questions were in any way related, since my Question deals with the encouragement of donations to the State

by testators for such things as the British Museum.

Mr. Speaker: I hope that I act in accordance with the practice of the House in this matter. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's difficulty. When an hon. Member's Question is answered with another Question in his absence, there is great difficulty in having it asked again at a later stage. I will confer with my advisers in order to confirm my view in case it be an illusion on my part that in adopting that system I am following the practice of the House.

Industry (Subsidies)

Mr. Spriggs: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total value of subsidies given to the British Transport Commission, the National Coal Board, the Electricity Board, and the Gas Board, since each of these industries became publicly owned; and the difference between the subsidies paid to the above publicly-owned industries and the subsidies paid to each of the above industries when privately owned over the last corresponding period of private ownership.

Mr. Barber: No subsidies have been paid to any of these industries since they were nationalised. As regards the second part of the hon. Member's Question, a number of grants of relatively small amount, were paid to the industries during the years 1935 to 1946, mainly to meet problems caused by the war and to encourage industrial development in areas of unemployment. It would not be possible to quantify these without an undue expenditure of time and effort.

Mr. Spriggs: When the hon. Gentleman is considering with his colleagues making subsidies or grants to private industry, will he bear in mind at the same time that publicly-owned industries, upon which the national economy rests, could do with an infusion of economic help?

Mr. Barber: I explained in my original Answer that no subsidies had been paid to any of the industries since they were nationalised. They are, however, able to borrow considerable amounts from the Exchequer. Since 1956, when the new system came into operation, they have borrowed £1,208 million from the Exchequer.

Mr. Shinwell: Why does the hon. Gentleman say that relatively small amounts were paid to privately-owned industries, now nationalised, before the war? Is he aware that under the Baldwin Government £25 million were conceded to the private-owned mining industry by way of subvention? Is £25 million a relatively small amount?

Mr. Barber: I do not wish to be discourteous to the right hon. Gentleman, but when I said "relatively small" I meant relatively small in relation to the other figure which I gave.

Books (Confiscation)

Dr. A. Thompson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will investigate the circumstances under which Her Majesty's Customs and Excise opened a crate of personal effects addressed to Mrs. Viet Wilson, a Swedish citizen residing in this country, and confiscated two books, "Lady Chatterley's Lover", by D. H. Lawrence, and "Tropic of Capricorn", by Henry Miller; whether he will explain the reasons for the removal of the books; why the shipping agents were not informed of the seizure as is normally done; and why no certificate of seizure was placed in the crate from which the books were removed.

Mr. Barber: This matter is being investigated and I will write to the hon. Member.

Dr. A. Thompson: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the controversy over Lawrence has been dead for over twenty-five years? Lawrence is now recognised as a major English novelist. His works are prescribed reading for university students in every reputable Department of English literature in this country and America. It is absurd that in 1959 Customs officials should be rummaging through the luggage of British or foreign citizens looking for copies of "Lady Chatterley's Lover".

Mr. Barber: One has to abide by the law, and as recently as 1955 this book was ruled to be obscene by a magistrate at Bow Street.

Mr. Grimond: Is not one of the books in question in the House of Commons Library?

Mr. Barber: I have not found it yet.

Mr. Jay: If a magistrate gave that ruling, does it not show that there must be something wrong with the law and that it should be altered?

Mr. Barber: That is hardly for me to answer.

Messrs. Colvilles, Ltd.

Mr. Lawson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will consult with Messrs. Colvilles, Limited, Motherwell, with a view to converting the £14 million of public money at present invested with that company in the form of loan capital at a low fixed rate of interest into ordinary dividend earning shares.

Mr. Barber: No, Sir. It would be contrary to Government policy for the Iron and Steel Holding and Realisation Agency, by whom these investments are held, to acquire ordinary shares in companies that have been denationalised.

Mr. Lawson: Is the Economic Secretary aware that when this company was denationalised four years ago the ordinary shares were sold for £13 million and that, because of the public money loaned to this company since then, those ordinary shares are now worth £33 million? Does not the hon. Gentleman think that he has a duty to ensure that the public purse benefits as well as the private sector?

Mr. Barber: Of course we have a duty to consider that, but nevertheless the Agency also has a duty—indeed, it is its primary duty, which is consistent with Her Majesty's Government's policy—not to acquire equity shares in companies already de-vested.

Mr. Marquand: In view of the vast public investment in this company, would it not be a good plan to appoint some Government directors to ensure that the business is managed properly?

Mr. Barber: That is another question.

Decimal Coinage

Mr. Braine: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the fact that many Commonwealth countries have adopted a decimal coinage or are now contemplating taking such a step, he will authorise an inquiry into the de sirability of such a reform in this country; and whether he will also arrange


for an early exchange of views on the subject with our Commonwealth partners.

Mr. Barber: Not at present.

Mr. Braine: Is my hon. Friend aware that Australia is now contemplating a change-over and that other Commonwealth countries have either done so or are thinking about it? Recent correspondence in the Financial Times shows a substantial body of opinion in favour. Authoritative bodies, like the Federation of British Industries, have not closed their minds to the idea. Will my hon. Friend ask his right hon. Friend to look at this again, otherwise we shall be left at the end of a long queue isolated as the only non-decimal country in the world?

Mr. Barber: I realise the force of my hon. Friend's argument, but the reason I gave him the answer "Not at present" was that, as he may know, the British Association is at the moment considering various matters, of which this is one, and it is probably better to wait until we have its Report.

Arts Council (Expenditure)

Dame Irene Ward: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give the total expenditure by the Arts Council, excluding the central overhead expenditure on Covent Garden, on opera and ballet, and the percentage of such expenditure in London and the provinces, respectively, in the years 1950–51, 1951–52, 1952–53, 1953–54, 1954–55, 1955–56, 1956–57, 1957–58. 1958–59.

Sir E. Boyle: As the Answer is rather long and contains a number of figures I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Dame Irene Ward: As the figures disclose that the provinces are very unjustly treated vis-à-vis London, will my hon. Friend give an assurance that no fresh grant of money will be made to the Arts Council until both sides of the House of Commons have had the opportunity to debate the whole matter of the administration of the Arts Council in this respect, which I believe is a scandal?

Sir E. Boyle: I think that my hon. Friend should table that question on the Order Paper.

Following is the Answer:


ARTS COUNCIL EXPENDITURE ON OPERA AND BALLET


—
Total
London
Scotland, Wales and the English Provinces



£
per cent.
per cent.


1950–51
205,773
78
22


1951–52
288,362
69
31


1952–53
348,912
86
14


1953–54
408,796
71
29


1954–55
412,555
66
34


1955–56
431,886
66
34


1956–57
488,539
66
34


1957–58
552,324
74
26


1958–59
631,524
70
30

1. It is not feasible to deduct Covent Garden central overheads from the Arts Council grant as the latter represents a contribution to the net deficit on the whole Government undertaking and the overheads form part of Covent Garden's gross expenditure.

2. In the case of Covent Garden, the provincial element in the above percentages was arrived at by setting direct, identifiable touring expenditure against box office takings, and the London element was arrived at by subtracting this from the total Arts Council subsidy.

3. Any attempt to apportion central overheads between London and provincial activities would be entirely arbitrary and notional.

Royal Fine Art Commission

Mr. Driberg: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in order to ensure the more effective protection of provincial cities, country towns, and villages against unsightly architectural development, he will discuss with the Royal Fine Art Commission the possibility of setting up regional committees of the Commission.

Sir E. Boyle: I will bring this suggestion to the notice of the Commission. It is, I suggest, primarily for the Commission to consider how best it can carry out the duties laid upon it.

Farthings

Mr. Lipton: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has considered all the factors relevant to the withdrawal of farthings from circulation; and if he has yet come to a decision in the matter.

Mr. Shepherd: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in addition to the proposed revision of the size of bank notes, he will give consideration to a revision of metal coinage.

Mr. Barber: I have nothing to add to the reply which my right, hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) on 10th November.

Mr. Lipton: May I ask whether since 10th November there has been a flood of representations to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in favour of the retention of farthings? Has not all the evidence or comment he has collected so far been in favour of abolition at the earliest possible moment? What is holding things up?

Mr. Barber: When my right hon. Friend answered the hon. Gentleman only about three weeks ago he said that he would like to have the widest comment before a decision is taken. I have seen certain letters arriving at the Treasury, but they are not all one way.

Arts Council Staff (Pensions)

Dame Irene Ward: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what additional grant he has made available to the Arts Council for the special purpose of establishing a pension scheme for senior staff; what grades are affected; and if he will make a statement.

Sir E. Boyle: None, Sir. The Arts Council operates a contributory pension scheme which covers all members of the staff, except daily cleaners, provided they are within the prescribed age limits.

Dame Irene Ward: Whilst thanking my hon. Friend for that Answer, as there has been some difficulty recently about Questions on the Order Paper, may I ask him to indicate just how far he is prepared to go in answering Questions? Will he bear in mind that his predecessor last July inadvertently rather closed the door, and is my hon. Friend prepared to open it, in view of the general interest of the public in these matters?

Sir E. Boyle: Yes. With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I will try to make the position about this quite clear. My right hon. Friend and I should, in general, be ready to answer Questions asking for factual information about the Arts Council's activities when the facts are available and we should also be prepared to answer Questions asking whether my right hon. Friend will increase the grant to the Arts Council or earmark it for a specific purpose, though I am sure that hon. Members will not be surprised if

our answer is normally that, so long as the Arts Council continues to enjoy my right hon. Friend's confidence, he intends to leave it free to decide for itself how much of its total grant it allocates to the purpose concerned. We consider that the reasons for certain decisions by the Arts Council, as well as its proposed course of action in the future, are matters entirely within the Arts Council's own sphere of responsibility. I think that that is a fair demarcation, and I hope that my hon. Friend and the House will accept it.

Mr. Jay: Why does this scheme exclude the daily cleaners?

Sir E. Boyle: I was rather puzzled about that myself, but if the right hon. Gentleman will allow me, I will write to him about them and explain.

Old-Age Pensioners

Mr. Beaney: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will consider furnishing the money necessary to pro vide all old-age pensioners with an allowance of free coal for Christmas.

Sir E. Boyle: No, Sir. It is not the intention of the Government to extend what would in effect be benefits in kind.

Mr. Beaney: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware of the Government's election pledges to alleviate distress among the old folk? Does not he consider that this is an opportunity to honour them? Is not he aware that if he acceded to this request he would not only earn the gratitude of those poor people who are not "having it so good", but would also win the approval of the nation?

Sir E. Boyle: Everyone on this side of the House rightly said during the election that both retirement pensions and National Assistance benefits in real terms were higher than they had ever been. The point in the Question is whether we should return to some system of benefits in kind, as we had with the tobacco token scheme We are quite right as a Government to set our mind against that sort of benefit.

Small Fixed Incomes

Dame Irene Ward: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what overall plan he has to help those living on small fixed incomes.

Mr. Barber: As my hon. Friend knows, we are very conscious of the difficulties with which many such people are faced. By far the best way to help them is to safeguard the stability of the economy, and this is what we are doing.

Dame Irene Ward: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that there was an election pledge? Will he ask his right hon. Friend to give consideration to this during the Recess, possibly setting up a Committee or something like that? Will he also convey to his right hon. Friend that I shall be in hot pursuit when the House resumes after the Recess?

Mr. Barber: I will certainly convey those observations to my right hon. Friend, and perhaps at the same time I may warn him.

Small Businesses (Assistance)

Mr. Albu: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking to carry out the suggestions of the Committee on the Working of the Monetary System to assist small businesses, especially those engaged in new inventions and innovations of technique.

Mr. Barber: The Radcliffe Committee made three proposals in this field: for an Industrial Guarantee Corporation, for term loans to small businesses by the banks, and for raising the upper limit on the size of transaction in which the Industrial and Commercial Finance Corporation may engage. The only one of these with which Her Majesty's Government is directly concerned is the first. On this, my right hon. Friend has asked his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to consider what need there is for a body of the kind suggested, and what contribution it might be able to make.
As to term loans, the hon. Gentleman will know that two banks have announced the introduction of term loans schemes for small businesses. As to the I.C.F.C., I understand that its shareholders have now agreed that the Corporation may take up the whole or part of any issue the total amount of which does not exceed £300,000.

Mr. Albu: Is not the Economic Secretary aware that many modern scientific inventions are suitable for development

by small businesses? There is at the present time a serious danger of many small businesses being absorbed by financial groups without any technical or scientific management or scientific interest.

Mr. Barber: I will draw the remarks of the hon. Member to the attention of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.

Mr. H. Wilson: Since the hon. Gentleman fairly said last week in the debate on the Radcliffe Report that it was impossible for any hon. Member to deal with all the issues raised in the Report, even Ministers—this is one of the issues not raised—would the hon. Gentleman ask his right hon. Friend to publish at the earliest possible date a White Paper summarising the recommendations of the Radcliffe Report and indicating which recommendations, in whole or in part, the Government accept?

Mr. Barber: I will certainly convey the hon. Member's suggestion to my right hon. Friend.

London Museum

Mr. Fletcher: asked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will announce his plans for the future for the London Museum.

Sir E. Boyle: I have had some exploratory discussions with representatives of the London Museum Trustees, the City of London and the London County Council. It is too early to say what the outcome will be.

Mr. Fletcher: Will the Financial Secretary bear in mind that this is a rather favourable moment for integrating the respective interests of the London Museum Trustees, the London County Council and the City Corporation? If the hon. Gentleman could use his good offices to bring about some integration of these efforts to provide a museum worthy of the Metropolis, it would be appreciated.

Sir E. Boyle: I am grateful for the hon. Member's interest in this matter. Any help which I can give towards the success of these discussions will be freely given.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

Consumer Protection (Committee)

Mr. Dodds: asked the President of the Board of Trade what progress has been made by the Committee on Consumer Protection.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. F. J. Erroll): I understand that the Committee has received a number of written submissions which it is studying and that it has begun to take oral evidence.

Mr. Dodds: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the decision by the Committee to investigate the safety standards of certain products because of the undue danger risks said to be involved will be received by many people with a good deal of satisfaction? In view of the concern about oil-fired heaters, which has been accentuated by the recent tragedy, will everything be done to expedite the investigation and the report?

Mr. Erroll: I am sure that the Committee will take note of what the hon. Member has said. With regard to expediting the report, it is important for the Committee to study this and other subjects most carefully before arriving at its recommendations.

SUMMIT CONFERENCE

Mr. Shin well: asked the Prime Minister what arrangements he is making to be accompanied at the proposed Summit Conference by representatives from countries of the Commonwealth other than the United Kingdom in order to assist in any discussions which may take place of matters of concern to such countries.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler): I have been asked to reply.
None, Sir. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister informed the right hon. Gentleman on 24th November, no requests have been received from other Commonwealth Governments for their representatives to accompany him to a Summit Conference. We shall continue to keep other Commonwealth Governments informed about plans for a Summit Conference. We also look forward to a meeting of Commonwealth Prime

Ministers in London before long. In all the circumstances, we do not feel that arrangements of the kind the right hon. Gentleman contemplates are in fact called for.

Mr. Shinwell: I was made aware that the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister could not be present this afternoon. May I put this supplementary question to the Leader of the House? In the event of a Summit Conference coming to fruition and questions other than European questions coming under consideration—for example, matters concerning the Pacific and the Commonwealth countries—is is not desirable that, in addition to President de Gaulle and Dr. Adenauer, and even President Eisenhower, who are quite lukewarm about the Commonwealth of Nations, some Commonwealth representatives should be present? Or are we to understand that the Summit Conference will be confined exclusively to a consideration of European issues?

Mr. Butler: No, Sir. I can give no general assurance of that type. After consulting my right hon. Friend, ample opportunity will be taken to consult Commonwealth countries about any matters arising which affect their interests.

CENTRAL AFRICA (ADVISORY COMMISSION)

Mr. Thorpe: asked the Prime Minister whether the Monckton Commission's terms of reference will enable it to hear evidence from persons living outside the Federation; whether the Commission will be empowered to hear evidence as to the economic possibilities of association between Nyasaland and the East African High Commission Territories; and whether the Commission will be entitled to evaluate such evidence and make a report thereon.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I have been asked to reply.
On all such matters it will be for the Commission to decide, in the light of its terms of reference, what evidence it wishes to receive. As regards the last part of the Question, I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has already said in the House.

Mr. Thorpe: Is the Leader of the House aware that the reply of the Prime Minister has caused grave disquiet and is looked on as being highly ambiguous? Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to the speech which the Governor of Nyasaland made the day before yesterday in which he said that he took the view that federation must be continued as the only form of economic association practicable? Are we to take it that the Commission will have to accept the same preconceived ideas at which, apparently, the Governor has already arrived?

Mr. Butler: I think that we must rely on the terms of reference which my right hon. Friend has announced. From my right hon. Friend's statement in the House, I would say that it was clear to me that the Commission will be free in practice to hear all points of view, from whatever quarter on whatever subject, although we thought it right to make terms of reference which accord with what we regard as the object of the 1960 review. Subject to that, it would be for the Commission to decide whether within its terms of reference it could take the type of evidence which the hon. Member desires.

Mr. Gaitskell: The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that it is all very well to hear evidence from any quarter on any subject, but there is not much point in that if the Commission cannot deliberate on the evidence which is submitted. Has the right hon. Gentleman absolutely nothing to add by way of explaining the Prime Minister's statement the other day?

Mr. Butler: No, Sir. The Prime Minister answered a variety of questions on the matter. This has been the subject of conversations, and I have nothing to add to my right hon. Friend's interpretation of the terms of reference.

Mr. Stonehouse: Will the Home Secretary confirm that the ambiguity and intransigence of the Prime Minister is because of the pressure brought upon him by Sir Roy Welensky?

Mr. Butler: No, Sir. I do not think things run quite like that. The Prime Minister is working within the terms of the original Constitution and the forthcoming 1960 review.

Mr. W. Hamilton: asked the Prime Minister if he is aware of the views expressed in Scotland that the Church of Scotland representative on the Monckton Commission does not represent the majority views of the Church or the people; and what steps he intends to take to make the Commission more truly representative of the Scottish interests concerned.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I have been asked to reply.
Dr. Shepherd has not been appointed as the representative of any particular interest or community but for his personal qualities and experience and the contribution that he can make to the work of the Commission. We are much indebted to him for offering his services.

Mr. Hamilton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Prime Minister's remarks last week on this appointment to the Commission were highly misleading? He said, in effect—I am paraphrasing his remarks—that Dr. Shepherd was a fair representative of the Church of Scotland. This is simply not so. If the right hon. Gentleman read the comments in the Observer last Sunday, he will have seen that the Commission as a whole is weighted quite clearly one way. Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether, in fact, the Prime Minister consulted the Church of Scotland about a representative to represent the majority view in the Church, in view of the fact that the Church of Scotland has a very special interest in Nyasaland?

Mr. Butler: First, I think that it would be a pity to prejudice the impartiality of members of the Commission before it starts its work. In the second place, if any sections of opinion in the Church of Scotland wish to put a point of view to the Commission, they will be able to apply to give evidence to the Commission, and it would then be for the Commission to decide whether or not to receive it. That, I think, is the fairest way to see that all points of view are considered.

Miss Herbison: Although all of us respect the high Christian principles and integrity of Dr. Shepherd, does not the Leader of the House feel that the knowledge of the background of Dr. Shepherd must strengthen the fears of all Africans


in Nyasaland about the objectivity of the members of the Commission?

Mr. Butler: No, Sir. The hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. W. Hamilton) referred to the Observer. There was an article in the Scotsman of 25th November which stated:
Most of the members are well qualified by experience of Africa or of constitutional matters for making an impartial survey of the working of Federation.
The article went on to point out that Dr. Shepherd was particularly suitable on this ground, and to acknowledge that he does not represent the dominant opinion of the Church of Scotland on Nyasaland, which I have not denied. However, that does not detract from the impartiality of Dr. Shepherd, nor from my observation that it would be up to the Church of Scotland, and those sections of opinion in it who wish to do so, to give evidence before the Commission.

Mr. Woodburn: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman distinguish between appointing a gentleman like Dr. Shepherd, with his background experience, and appointing to the Commission someone whose judgment would give confidence to the people of Scotland that the point of view of the majority of the Church of Scotland had been taken into account? Dr. Shepherd, I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree, has been so far away from Scottish opinion, his experience being mainly in South Africa, that he cannot possibly convey a feeling of confidence that an objective view of the evidence is nesessarily possible.

Mr. Butler: I do not think that is the case. I am sure that the Moderator of the Church of Scotland is an entirely suitable person to serve on the Commission. As for his impartiality, I have no doubt at all. As for the evidence which can be given, it is up to those sections of opinion in the Church of Scotland who disagree with anything which may have been said to put their viewpoint to the Commission.

Mr. Hamilton: Does the Home Secretay deny that the Prime Minister's statement last week was a misleading of the House? Further, does he confirm or deny the facts as stated in the Observer, that Dr. Shepherd has lived for forty years in South Africa and that during

that time he practised where he lived the policy of segregation of whites and blacks? In that case, how can the right hon. Gentleman say that the man is impartial?

Mr. Butler: Speaking for myself, I was not impressed by the impartiality of the Observer article.

Hon. Members: Oh.

Sir J. Duncan: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of his supporters on this side of the House entirely disagree with the views expressed in the Question and in the article in the Observer? On the other hand, we congratulate the Government on the appointment of the Moderator of the Church of Scotland, who has done extremely good work in his year of office.

Mr. Paget: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on a previous occasion when the rights of colonial self-determination were under discussion, Edmund Burke observed to a predecessor in office of the right hon. Gentleman that he was prepared to die only in the last ditch of prevarication?

Mr. Butler: I am very glad to add that to my armoury of sayings from Edmund Burke.

TELEPHONE CONVERSATION, READING

The following Questions stood upon the Order Paper:

Mr. GORDON WALKER: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) on what grounds he authorised the interception of a recent telephone conversation in which Dr. Kenneth Merrall Fox took part, details of which have been sent to him by the hon. Member for Smethwick;
(2) why, in view of Her Majesty's Government's acceptance of the Report of the Committee of Privy Councillors on the interception of communications, presented to Parliament in October, 1957, Command Paper No. 283, there was a disclosure on 26th November, 1959, to the disciplinary committee of the General Medical Council of a record of an intercepted telephone conversation.

Mr. W. GRIFFITHS: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the facts revealed during the proceedings of the disciplinary committee of the General Medical Council on 26th November, 1959, he will give an assurance that Her Majesty's Government continue to accept the recommendations contained in the Report of the Privy Councillors on the interception of communications, Command Paper No. 283 of October, 1957.

Mr. GINSBURG: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department why he made available to the Reading or other police, for disclosure to the disciplinary committee of the General Medical Council on 26th November, a record of an intercepted telephone conversation.

Mr. LIPTON: TO ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the recent disclosure to the General Medical Council of an intercepted telephone conversation, he will confirm that Her Majesty's Government still accept the recommendations of Command Paper No. 283 of October, 1957.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler): I will, with permission, now answer Questions Nos. 94, 95, 96, 98 and 101 together.
I did not authorise the police to listen to this conversation or to transmit a record of it to the General Medical Council. I understand that the police listened on a private extension of a telephone with the consent of the subscriber in the course of criminal investigations made at the request of the deputy-coroner. This does not require any authority from me and I am informed that no infringement of the law is involved.
The Solicitor to the General Medical Council learned of the existence of a record of the conversation from the subscriber concerned and subpoenaed the police to produce it. When the subpoena was received I was consulted on the question whether privilege should be claimed and I accepted the advice given me that this would not be right.
The House will know that in general the privacy of telephone calls is safeguarded by the Post Office Act, 1953, and the Telegraph Act, 1869.
Secret interception of a call on the public telephone system is practised only on public grounds on the personal authority of the Secretary of State. On this occasion the police listened in only with the consent of the party concerned.
I understand that this procedure is, as it should be, quite exceptional. It was undertaken in this case because of the special nature of the criminal investigations to which I have referred.
This is an entirely different matter from the secret interception with which the Committee of Privy Councillors was concerned. As regard this, I can assure the House that the Government will continue to see that in all areas the practice based on the recommendations of the Committee is followed.

Mr. Gordon Walker: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that his statement is a disquieting one in two distinct particulars, both of which will arouse a great deal of doubt and controversy? The first is the question of secret interception. The right hon. Gentleman said that it was with the consent of the party concerned, but does he not realise that there are two parties to a conversation, and what constitutes an interception is that one of the parties was unaware that the interception was taking place and that, therefore, it was a secret interception? Does he also realise that there are two views about whether this aspect was covered by the Report of the Privy Councillors who considered this matter? Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the general position of the Privy Councillors was that this was so odious and great a power that it had to be restricted as much as possible? It is, therefore, important to define telephone tapping widely and strictly and that anything that might be so considered should be included in the definition and made subject to the warrant of the Secretary of State.
The second question is the disclosure to a domestic tribunal. Surely, the words used in paragraph 154 of the Report of the Privy Councillors cover completely what happened on this occasion. The Home Secretary himself accepted, on behalf of the Government, the recommendation contained in paragraph 154. We realise that there are difficulties about subpoena in this matter, but would not the right hon.
Gentleman agree that this whole question is now so difficult and raises such great issues that opportunity should be given to debate it, together with, perhaps, the Report of the Privy Councillors?

Mr. Butler: To take in reverse order the points raised by the right hon. Gentleman, the first question is one of disclosure. I do not claim that this case is at all on all fours with the Report or the conclusions of the Committee of Privy Councillors. The sort of thing which might happen is that a subscriber may agree that somebody should listen to an extension on his telephone, which is quite a different matter from interfering with the public telephone system and intercepting at the instigation of authority. The latter is completely covered, as I said in my Answer, in all areas of the country, by the decision of the Government to accept the Report of the Committee, of which the right hon. Gentleman was a member.
Concerning the subpoena, the right hon. Gentleman will realise that this was a particular case and that, in answer to the subpoena, there was no alternative but to produce the document unless privilege had been claimed and granted. I considered this very carefully on the advice of the Law Officers and I came to the conclusion, on balance, that public interest was not to claim privilege on this occasion. I think that my judgment was right.
In regard to the second point raised by the right hon. Gentleman—that this was so odious a power—I quite agree that we do not want interception on our telephones. There can be no question of interception on the public telephone system without the authority of the Secretary of State. It is, however, almost impossible for me or any other Minister to prevent a subscriber from giving permission to somebody to listen on his extension. In the case of the police, which particularly applies in this instance, there must on occasion, I am informed, be instances in which criminal investigations are involved. I would bring to the attention of the House that this was nothing to do with the disciplinary committee of the General Medical Council, but was concerned with a criminal investigation asked for by the deputy coroner.
I do not think that this should be a general practice. From the inquiries I

have been able to make, I am informed that it is very rare. After this exchange, I will make further inquiries. I do not think it is something which should be generally done, but I cannot absolutely guarantee that it will not happen on certain occasions as were shown in a leading article in The Times today, which gave certain instances when the practice might be used.
In reply to the first point made by the right hon. Gentleman about one party, when a person gives permission for a private extension, hired from the telephone system, to be used by another person, I do not think it is easy for a Minister to intervene.

Mr. Gordon Walker: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman realises the difference when the telephone is used by the police making a record which might be used against the other party who is unaware of it. There is a great deal of difference between a private person eavesdropping and the police making a direct record for use of these interceptions. Surely, the right hon. Gentleman will agree with this and that, therefore, the matter comes within the intent, at least, of the Report of the Privy Councillors.

Mr. Butler: This could only be done by agreement with at least one party, namely, the subscriber concerned. It is not on all fours with an interception of the public system, as was agreed by the Committee of Privy Councillors.

Mr. Lipton: Was it not clearly understood after the Report of the Privy Councillors was accepted by the Government that in no circumstances was disclosure of private investigations to be made to an outside body or third party? Is it not ominous that the Home Secretary now holds out the prospect that it is the easiest thing in the world to ride a horse and cart through the assurance given by the Government merely by subpoenaing a policeman and then having at the disposal of a domestic tribunal any evidence or reports that the police may have accumulated in connection with quite another matter?

Mr. Butler: No, Sir. The Report of the Privy Councillors was concerned essentially with interception of the public telephone system under the authority of the Secretary of State. It


was certainly agreed and accepted by the Government that such reports—I felt this most strongly myself—should not be passed to outside bodies. Here we have an example of the police indulging in criminal investigation and taking action which I regard, and I have so stated, as being exceptional with the agreement of one of the parties concerned, namely, the subscriber. When the subpoena arrived, the police had no alternative but to submit the document unless I claimed privilege for it, and that was when the matter came to me. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why was privilege not claimed?"] It is just as well that the Home Secretary of the day should not necessarily claim privilege and should be very careful about the claiming of it. It is an occasion for preserving liberty.
I was advised by the Law Officers that this matter was not easily covered by the statement made by the Lord Chancellor on the claiming of privilege in 1955. In my view, this is a borderline case of the claiming of privilege. I took the advice given to me and I am not sorry that I accepted it. I am, however, perfectly ready to discuss with my right hon. and learned Friends the Law Officers and with the Lord Chancellor the application of future cases and the question of privilege relating to them on the basis of that example.

Mr. Gordon Walker: Will the right hon. Gentleman now tell us that, in effect, he assented to the disclosure of the document before the tribunal?

Mr. Butler: I would have been very glad to claim privilege and hold back the document, but on advice, which was the best advice I could obtain, I thought it was in the interests of liberty that I should not claim privilege on this occasion. It is a matter of opinion. There are many lawyers who take one view or another about this, and I am certain that when there is doubt, it is the duty of the Home Secretary to come down on the side of liberty.

Mr. W. Griffiths: Can the Home Secretary tell us whether it is true that the police asked the lady to make the call and allow them to eavesdrop? Did the initiative come from the police? If it did, and if the police did that because they suspected, as the Home Secretary

has said, that criminal proceedings might be involved, why did they not avail themselves of the procedure, with which we are all familiar, of applying to the Secretary of State for his warrant? This looks rather like an attempt to evade the limitations imposed upon them by the Birkett Committee.
This is a serious matter, because there is at present before the House a Bill designed to set up disciplinary machinery for a large number of medical auxiliaries, who will be exposed to the same conditions as was the doctor before the General Medical Council, unless the Government do something to prevent this sort of thing from happening again.

Mr. Butler: My information is that the suggestion was put to the lady by the police and that she agreed to it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am trying to give the House the facts so that hon. Members have the full story before them. It is a very difficult case. The lady was reported in the Press as having said that there was no police coercion or trickery, and that I believe to be the case.
In relation to the last point raised by the hon. Member concerning the disciplinary organs which may be set up under the Professions Supplementary to Medicine Bill, that is a matter for the House. It may well be that the offer I have just made—that the bounds of privilege should be further examined—is one which I should take up at the request of the House with my right hon. Friends and with the Lord Chancellor. It may well be that I should do that.

Mr. Ginsburg: Did the Home Secretary, in coming to his decision not to claim Crown privilege, have due regard to paragraph 100 of the Birkett Report which deals with a parallel situation, particularly the last sentence which reads:
… the power given to the Secretary of State to issue a warrant to intercept communications, whether by letter or by telegram or telephone, is a power of such importance and consequence that it should be most rigorously confined to the purposes which convinced the Home Secretary that it was right to issue the warrant in the first place."?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir, with that I entirely agree; but that deals with the Secretary of State and his power of interception on rare occasions and for public reasons—those are the words of


the Birkett Report—in relation to the public telephone system. This matter, in fact, does not come under the direct authority of the Secretary of State. In further answer to a pervious supplementary question, I will say, of course, that I should prefer that these matters did come directly under me, and then I could feel that I had more control of them.

Mr. Doughty: Is it not a fact that it is the duty of the police to obtain evidence where criminal proceedings are contemplated—for example, when money is demanded with menaces or threats are made—and, if they can overhear a conversation, it may assist in any such criminal proceedings, and whether the conversation is conducted over the telephone or by the parties in a room makes no difference at all?

Mr. Butler: Yes, I did attempt to reserve the ultimate right for the police in certain cases—one of which is referred to in the leading article in The Times, namely, blackmail—to have the possibility of recourse to action of this kind. But I have said that, in my view, it should be purely exceptional. Again in answer to hon. Members opposite, I say that I would very much rather that it came directly under me, in the straightforward procedure of the Secretary of State.

Mr. Grimond: Will not the Home Secretary accept that, whatever legal difficulties he may have encountered in this case, it was generally understood by the House that this was exactly a case which came under the Government's undertaking on the Report of the Committee—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—that is to say, that information obtained in this way would not be given to a third party? If he cannot avoid giving it to a third party, as he said, or as he thinks it undesirable to do, will he consult not only the Law Officers to ascertain whether the law needs changing but also come back to the House, as he suggested, and explain to the House exactly where he now stands? It seems to me clear that the assurances given after the Report of the Birkett Committee have not been supported.

Mr. Butler: I will accept that point only to a certain extent. There is, quite rightly, anxiety about a case like this, but I could not take it as being absolutely on all fours with the interception of the public telephone system, which arises out

of the Report of the Birkett Committee. I agree that this case is a difficult one. The General Medical Council has the power of subpoena. There is no doubt about that; it has been given that power by Parliament. When the subpoena arrived, the only way of stopping the document appearing was by claiming privilege. Whether I was right or wrong, I acted on the best possible advice in this matter, and I think, on balance, that my decision was right. But I have agreed that in future cases of this sort I will consider the question of privilege with the Law Officers and with the Lord Chancellor.

Mr. Pitman: Accepting that the Home Secretary has no powers in this case, so far as the past is concerned, but looking forward to his consultations for the future, ought we not to concentrate on the word he used, namely, listen," because I should not, in any case, like it to be accepted that one party at one end of a telephone could consent that someone else should listen to what is said by the man at the other end. It may well be that this case is analogous to the passing of letters, and copyright may rest in the person who is speaking at the other end, and I think that that should be looked into. Moreover, quite apart from the matter of listening, the gravamen here was that there was not only listening but the conversation was tape-recorded and, therefore, became permanent. Furthermore, it became permanent in a form which is subject to all kinds of jiggery-pokery, because, so I am informed by people competent to say, it is possible for a tape recording to produce evidence that anybody has said anything. I hope, therefore, that the Home Secretary will look at this double point of turning a conversation into a recorded one, recorded in a medium which is subject to suspicion in the sense that it may be made to say literally anything.

Mr. Butler: We will certainly examine the implications of the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Pitman).

Mr. S. Silverman: I appreciate the difficulties that the right hon. Gentleman was in, in view of the legal advice given to him arising out of the undesirability generally of claiming too freely Crown


privilege against the production of Crown documents, but, nevertheless, will he bear in mind that, in the Lord Chancellor's statement to which he referred, there is the exception of a class of documents in respect of which the Crown is entitled to claim privilege against production? Will he explain how it comes about that he did not regard the acceptance which he gave to the House of the Committee's recommendations about not disclosing these matters to domestic tribunals as itself creating a class of documents for which, in every case, privilege ought to be claimed?

Mr. Butler: I think that it would be very difficult for me in question and answer to give a learned disquisition or satisfactory answer on privilege. If there was an occasion when I could do so, after taking further advice, I should naturally like to give the information to the House.

Mr. E. Fletcher: Does not the Home Secretary realise that, in some ways, this case is far more serious than the Marrinan case because here there was a telephone conversation not only intercepted by the police but instigated by the police for the purpose of performing their duties in the detection of crime? Does he not realise that the whole House was under the impression, as a result of the Report of the Birkett Committee, that, where such interception took place, it would always, first of all, require the written warrant of the Home Secretary, which was not obtained in this case but which could easily have been obtained?

Mr. Jay: It could have been asked for.

Mr. Fletcher: Secondly, where any such interception takes place and information is obtained, was not an absolute undertaking given to the House that the information thereby obtained would not be disclosed to any private individual or domestic tribunal?

Mr. Butler: I am aware of that, and I stand by that, because it is right. But it is impossible in this case for a Secretary of State or any Minister to be completely aware of what is happening if the matter does not come to him in the way suggested by the hon. Gentleman, namely, a request for an official interception. If that were to happen, then the case would be on all fours with what

was said by the Birkett Committee. In this case, I am not myself responsible for the provincial police in any particular, and the only occasion on which this case came to me was when I was asked about Crown privilege. If I had then claimed privilege, I might, I think, have restricted the liberty of discussion and I might have done a greater disservice than I have up to date.

Mr. Fletcher: Will the Home Secretary bear in mind that, after the Report of the Privy Councillors to Parliament, this assurance was given in the House by the Prime Minister on 31st October, 1957:
The Government accept all the Committee's recommendations and arrangements are being made to give effect to those of them which call for a change in procedure."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st October, 1957; Vol. 575, c. 398.]
Therefore, ought not the Home Secretary to have arranged that there should be sufficient procedure to enable his warrant to have been applied for in a case like this?

Mr. Butler: No, Sir; I think that anybody in the important and heavily responsible position I hold would not be able to cross his heart and say that there had never been listening either on an extension of a telephone or anything else in the whole course and range of police activities, especially in criminal investigations. What I do say is that, after inquiry and having consulted my inspectors, I find this to be a most exceptional procedure. I am very glad to hear that it is. But I cannot absolutely guarantee that such a thing will not happen in the course of criminal proceedings. What I should like to see happen is the thing done by normal intercept, with the authority of the Secretary of State, and then I know where I am, and I am answerable to the House.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: I welcome the concern which the Home Secretary has expressed about what he has described as this borderline case, but does he not realise that his remedy of referring the matter in future cases of a similar kind to the Law Officers is utterly useless because they would, presumably, give him precisely the same advice as they gave him on this occasion? Does he not realise, therefore, that what is essential


is what he indicated in his last observation, namely, that a warrant of the Secretary of State should be necessary in the exceptional cases where police listen in, as in the circumstances of this case? Is he not, in fact, inviting the House to give him authority or to endorse authority for him to make a warrant essential for the police acting in such cases as this? Will he recognise that that is precisely what the Birkett Committee itself recommended? The Birkett Committee's recommendations extended not only to telephone conversations but to interceptions of letters and documents, and does he appreciate that the Birkett Committee condemned interceptions of letters at the instigation of one of the parties to a letter and that that, therefore, completely covers the case of interception at the request of one party to a telephone conversation?

Mr. Butler: I did not say that I would automatically accept the advice of the Law Officers. I said that I would consult the Law Officers and the Lord Chancellor, who made the original statement in 1955, about the application of privilege, because there are two sorts of privilege in cases like this. I think that that is an offer which it is reasonable for the House to accept. [HON. MEMBERS: NO."] I think it is a sensible thing to do. There is no other way in which we can further define the application of privilege, and that is the best way to do it.
In answer to the hon. and learned Gentleman's second question, I think he must differentiate between the matters referred to by the Birkett Committee, which related to interception of the public telephone system on the authority of the Government, that is to say, the Secretary of State, and what happens occasionally when, whether in private life or in investigations by the police, permission is given by a subscriber to use a private extension hired from the telephone system. The latter is a different problem altogether and much more difficult to control.

Mr. Gordon Walker: Surely, this was the public telephone system. No one can ring up someone in a house without using the public telephone system provided by the Government. This was, therefore, an interception in the full sense of the word—an interception of the public telephone system.
Mr. Speaker, may I ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9?

Mr. Speaker: I will hear the right hon. Gentleman in due course, but I think that that comes after the Business Question. Mr. Gaitskell.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Gaitskell: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will announce the business for next week?

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 7TH DECEMBER—Supply: Committee.
Consideration of Civil Supplementary Estimates and Army Supplementary Estimate contained in House of Commons Papers Nos. 27 and 26, beginning with Class IX, Vote 6A for the Office of the Minister for Science.
It is hoped to obtain these Votes by 7 o'clock, when it is proposed to afford an opportunity for a discussion of the Opposition Motion relating to Racial Intolerance and Discrimination.
Consideration of a Motion relating to the Western European Union (Immunities and Privileges) Order.
TUESDAY, 8TH DECEMBER, and WEDNESDAY, 9TH DECEMBER—Local Employment Bill: Committee.
We hope to finish the Committee stage on Wednesday, the 9th.
THURSDAY, 10TH DECEMBER—Debate on Traffic Problems.
Consideration of Police Pensions Regulations and similar Regulations for Scotland.
FRIDAY, 11TH DECEMBER—Consideration of Private Members' Bills.
It may be convenient for me to inform the House that, if all necessary business has been disposed of, it is hoped that it will be possible to adjourn for the Christmas Recess on Thursday, 17th December, until Tuesday, 26th January.

Mr. Gaitskell: On Thursday's business, am I right in thinking that this will take place on an Opposition Motion?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir; I understand that that is the wish of the Opposition.

Mr. Gaitskell: May I, then, say that it will be drawn in wide terms so as not to restrict the debate too narrowly.

Mr. C. Pannell: Is the Leader of the House still seized of the need to provide more accommodation in the building? Is he aware that, upstairs in the rooms where desks are provided for hon. Members who have not secretaries, efforts are now being made to pack in still more desks to an extent which would bring the House in conflict with the sanitary inspector were this building not a Royal Palace?
Will the right hon. Gentleman at least see that he is refreshed by the opinion of the House before we rise for Christmas, so that he can put the works in hand during the Recess?

Mr. Butler: In any case, with the aid of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Works, we are planning for the future in relation to accommodation. How quickly we may then satisfy hon. Members I do not know, but we are planning. As for the possibility of a debate, I am not sure that there will be time, but whether there is time or not before Christmas, hon. Members should realise that we are fully aware of the difficulties which they are going through.

Mr. George Craddock: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen my Motion on the Order Paper, supported by 73 of my hon. Friends, concerning a directive given a jury at Nottingham Assizes on 25th November last? In view of the deep and growing concern over this matter, and, I fear, the raising perhaps of the constitutional position of juries, will the Leader of the House be good enough to provide Parliamentary time to debate the matter before the Christmas Recess?

[That this House deplores the direction given to a jury at Nottingham Assizes on 25th November by Mr. Justice Stable, who said: "I will leave this court in 10 minutes, and if by that time you have not arrived at a conclusion you will be kept locked up here all night and we will resume when I get back tomorrow morning at 11.45 a.m.", believing that such pressure exercised upon any jury is calculated to undermine the faith of the nation in our courts of justice.]

Mr. S. Silverman: On a point of order. My hon. Friend will know that I have every sympathy with the object of his Motion, but is it not a fact that this matter is under appeal and, therefore, sub judice, and that, therefore, it might not be to anybody's advantage to pursue it in the House of Commons at this time?

Mr. Speaker: I do not have specific knowledge of the matter raised by the hon. Member. It is possible that the Leader of the House can give the House some information on that. If, of course, the matter is under appeal, clearly it could not be debated during that time.

Mr. Butler: I am informed that in the case to which the hon. Member refers one of the convicted men is almost certain to appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal, and I am further informed that appeal is under consideration on behalf of some or all of the other men convicted. In the circumstances, I think that the intervention of the hon. Member for Nelson and Come (Mr. S. Silverman) is very sound and that we should not pursue the matter for the time being.

Mr. George Craddock: May I say that I have gone carefully into this matter. It is perfectly true that there is till Monday next during which time an appeal may be lodged, but this has not happened, and I understand that some action is being taken in another place today.

Mr. Hale: Could the Leader of the House tell us how far he has got with his consideration of the Report of the Select Committee on Procedure, and whether we shall have an opportunity of coming to that fairly soon? Will he bear in mind, too, that one of the recommendations, that the business for next week should be announced on the preceding Monday, is one which he could implement forthwith even without debate, and that a second, that Mr. Speaker should not have to put the Question on Privilege on the moment, appears to be becoming one of some urgency?

Mr. Butler: Yes. I have had consultations on all these matters of procedure, not only through the usual channels but also with individual hon. Members who have been good enough to see me and express their views. I propose to try to adhere to the timetable which I announced at the beginning of this Parliament, namely, that I


should lay Motions necessary for making these alterations in the procedure and make the necessary alterations on our return after the Christmas Recess. I shall endeavour to continue the conversations, to say as much as I can to the House before. That will not necessarily delay the Motion I suggest for making the changes when we return.

Mr. Ronald Bell: Is my right hon. Friend aware of another very important recommendation by that Select Committee, that Privy Councillors should not enjoy priority at Question Time? Is there any reason why we should not introduce that as from today?

Mr. Butler: This is a matter, Mr. Speaker, which I think the Select Committee on Procedure realised lay within your own province.

Mr. Mendelson: In considering future business, will the Leader of the House take into consideration the Motion standing on the Order Paper in my name and the names of 79 other hon. Members, which deals with the supply of arms of a nuclear type to Western Germany and with related matters? As a number of international conferences are discussing these matters at present, is it not very urgent that the House of Commons should debate the Motion, possibly before the Christmas Recess?

[That this House regrets the supply to Western Germany by the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, and with the full consent of Her Majesty's Government, of tactical atomic weapons and missiles of nuclear capability; believes that this policy will foreclose debate on some of the most vital issues to be discussed at the delayed Summit Conference; and, therefore, urges Her Majesty's Government not to continue this policy until the Summit Conference has been held.]

Mr. Butler: It is a question of time. No one would underestimate the importance of the Motion, which I have before me here, but I could not myself guarantee the time.

Mrs. Castle: Further to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) about accommodation, is the Leader of the House aware that Members on this side of the House have some very strong views as to how the accommodation of

the House could be improved, and that they may be views which do not necessarily agree with those being explored at the moment by the Government and the Minister of Works? Is not this a matter which ought to be a subject of all-party consideration and satisfaction? Is it not, therefore, urgent to have a debate on this matter before the Government produce their proposals in a final form and come to us with a fait accompli again? Cannot we have a debate before Christmas?

Mr. Butler: I think that an interchange would be valuable, but I am not sure that we can debate it before Christmas. I hope that if there are any improvements the hon. Lady wishes to bring to my attention she will do so.

Mr. Lipton: Can the right hon. Gentleman find time to discuss my Motion on the Order Paper calling for the removal of a magistrate of the Wokingham Bench? Is he aware that when, in accordance with the fairly well-established convention in these matters, a removal from a judicial post is involved, time is usually found for such a Motion so that the Motion does not stay on the Order Paper indefinitely?

[That this House takes note that, on 19th October last at Wokingham Juvenile Court, Mr. Leonard Hackett, J.P., addressed an accused person in the following terms; "What you richly deserve is such a thorough thrashing that you would be senseless for about forty-eight hours. Very unfortunately this court has no power, and no other court has any power, to order you to be so punished. However, I have no doubt that if you continue in your present way of life this punishment you will receive, and it will not be ordered by a court of law but by other men in whose society you will find yourself"; and this House is therefore of the opinion that Mr. Hackett should be removed from the list of magistrates.]

An Hon. Member: Take the Motion off.

Mr. Butler: If the hon. Member is not ready to accept that advice from my side of the House, I should like to examine his Motion.

Mr. V. Yates: May I come back to the Motion on the Order Paper in the


name of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. George Craddock), about which a point of order was raised? Is the Leader of the House aware that counsel who are appealing this case have said that they have no intention of appealing on the grounds of the remarks to which the Motion takes objection? If this is so, is it not then reasonable that the House should express an opinion?

Mr. Butler: I do not think that it is suitable, subject to your discretion, Mr. Speaker, that we should pursue this matter today.

Mr. Harold Davies: When the right hon. Gentleman answered a question about a Motion on the Order Paper in the names of 80 Members on the nuclear rearmament of Germany, did he imply that the House would not have an opportunity of debating that or foreign affairs before the Western Summit Conference? Are we once again to be presented by the Government with a fait accompli after a Recess? Would the right hon. Gentleman kindly tell us whether the House is to have an opportunity before the Western Summit for a debate on foreign affairs and on the vital issue of the rearmament of Germany with nuclear weapons?

Mr. Butler: I think it unlikely that time will be available, but perhaps the hon. Member would consult his own right hon. and hon. Friends as well, as business is not entirely a matter decided from one side of the House, but is done a great deal by discussion.

Mr. Swingler: In view of the undertaking of the Prime Minister to announce the date of the Summit Conference in the few days which have taken place since the General Election, does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that it would be fair to the House to have the opportunity of discussing the important issues raised in that Motion? Is the right' hon. Gentleman suggesting we are not to have an opportunity to discuss this matter this side of 26th January?

Mr. Butler: It does not appear at present as if there will be an occasion on which we can discuss it.

Mr. Shinwell: Mr. Shinwell rose—

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Reverting to the subject of the Select Committees on Procedure and on Accommodation, my right hon. Friend said earlier this Session that both were important subjects and were worthy of separate debates. Will he confirm that that is what he still has in mind? Will he also bear in mind that while a number of questions for consideration have been raised from the other side of the House, there is a good deal of feeling on this side of the House that these are important subjects and should not be forgotten?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. It seems quite clear that we shall have an opportunity of debating procedure on our return, no doubt, on the action I propose to take, namely, the laying of a Motion. As regards accommodation, in view of the exceptional interest we shall no doubt have an exchange of views, and there will be opportunity for that, but I do not think that that will occur before Christmas.

Mr. Shinwell: May I have leave to put a question to the Leader of the House, with apologies to the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke)? [HON. MEMBERS: "Go on."] Arising out of the question about a Motion which has been placed on the Order Paper by my hon. Friend, helped by several other hon. Members on this side of the House, is the right hon. Gentleman aware of what is now proceeding in the European sphere, and the discussions between Dr. Adenauer and General de Gaulle on the further provision of nuclear weapons and missiles to Western Germany?
If the right hon. Gentleman cannot agree to a debate before the Christmas Recess, will he communicate with the Foreign Secretary and cause, at any rate, a suspension of those decisions about providing such weapons to Western Germany in the meantime?

Mr. Butler: I will certainly convey those views to my right hon. and learned Friend. On business, I can answer only for the actual time, but I will convey the right hon. Gentleman's views.

TELEPHONE CONVERSATION, READING

Mr. Gordon Walker: I ask leave, Mr. Speaker, to move the Adjournment of tin House, under Standing Order No. 9, to call attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely,
The interception by the police, and at their instigation, of a telephone conversation without the express warrant of the Secretary of State, the disclosure to a domestic tribunal of material obtained by interception, the consent given by the Home Secretary to this disclosure, and his failure to take steps to prevent a recurrence of this type of interception and disclosure in future.

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) desires to move the Adjournment of the House on a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely,
The interception by the police, and at their instigation, of a telephone conversation without the express warrant of the Secretary of State, the disclosure to a domestic tribunal of material obtained by interception, the consent given by the Home Secretary to this disclosure, and his failure to take steps to prevent a recurrence of this type of interception and disclosure in future.
Yesterday, in another context, the House was pressing upon me that I might have its leave upon occasion to take time to consider such matters. I would be grateful if I might have the indulgence of the House in this matter. I do not find it to be one that is altogether easy. That would mean that I would protect the right hon. Gentleman's priority. I regret that it means, of course, in these circumstances, deferring the matter, I think until Monday, but I would be grateful if the House would allow me to rule upon it then.

Mr. Gordon Walker: We are very willing to accept your decision, Mr. Speaker. Thank you very much.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on Government Business exempted at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. R. A. Butler.]

Orders of the Day — COMMONWEALTH SCHOLARSHIPS [MONEY]

Resolution reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision for matters arising out of the recommendations of the Commonwealth Education Conference it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of the expenses of the Secretary of State—

(a) in making awards arising out of the Scholarship Plan put forward by the Conference to persons coming to the United Kingdom,
(b) in supplementing awards so arising to persons going from the United Kingdom to other countries, and
(c) in defraying the expenses of any Commission constituted by the said Act to exercise functions so arising (including travelling and other allowances to members of the Commission and its committees and advisers).

Resolution agreed to.

Orders of the Day — COMMONWEALTH SCHOLARSHIPS BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Sir GORDON TOUCHE in the Chair]

Clause 1.—(THE COMMONWEALTH SCHOLARSHIP COMMISSION.)

4.14 p.m.

Mr. Malcolm MacPherson: I beg to move, in page 1, line 20, to leave out "and" and to insert:
(d) ensuring the widest practicable distribution of recipients under paragraphs (a) and (b) above according to locality of the university or college and the subject of study, and 
I should point out that this Amendment is not intended to be taken as absolutely the last possible word in the circumstances. For instance, the word "practicable", in the meaning which we attach to it, would convey something of the suggestion of "reasonable"—a reasonable distribution. We are not suggesting anything like a rationing out according to geographical areas or anything of that sort, but we are suggesting that the Commission should be charged with the responsibility not merely of placing the students in some reasonable way in the available universities and


colleges, and, I suggest, other institutions in this country, but also in relation to the subjects studied. It is possible to leave the Commission complete freedom to decide on what principles it will do the placing, but it seems to us that this particular principle, or factor at least, is so important that it should be pointed out to the Commission, which ought to be charged with having regard to it in the placing of students.
The situation concerning Commonwealth students coming to this country under existing arrangements is not nearly so bad as the situation which exists under the Marshall scholarships scheme. The Marshall scholars exhibit a very extreme case of students coming from one group of colleges and going to a very small group of colleges in this country. On published figures, I find that over half of them come from the New England colleges, and again on published figures, five-sixths of them go to three institutions in this country—Oxford, Cambridge and the London School of Economics.
The situation with regard to Commonwealth students in this country is not revealed exactly, so far as I know, by any published figures. I do not know of any figures which indicate exactly the number of Commonwealth students in the universities here, but if one can take overseas students in general it seems that two-thirds are Commonwealth students, and one would deduce from that the sort of situation that exists, which would indicate that we have not got anything like the extreme maladministration that we have in the case of Marshall scholars.
In the universities of Great Britain—I am not talking about non-university students or other students—according to published figures for 1957–58, there were then about 11,000 students from overseas, and of those 11,000 about 7,000 were students from Commonwealth countries—about two-thirds—so that probably the situation as disclosed by these figures of 11,000 students would give a fair indication—nothing exact—but a fair suggestion of how the 7,000 are distributed.
The distribution is rather different from that which we find in the case of the Marshall scholarships. Out of these

11,000 students, about 890 or 8 per cent., go to Oxford; 810, or 7 per cent., go to Cambridge; and 740, or about 61 per cent., to the London School of Economics. The total of students at these three institutions is, therefore, about 21 or 22 per cent., as against the 83 per cent. in the case of the Marshall scholarships, but there is maldistribution, in spite of that.
Before coming to that point, I should point out not only that the proportion going to the three main popular institutions of Oxford, Cambridge and the London School of Economics is smaller, but that a number of other institutions follows fairly closely on their heels. The Imperial College, according to the figures for that year, had 500, against 740 going to the L.S.E. Edinburgh University had 530 and other universities as many as 400, so that there is a much wider spread, and the problem, on the existing figures, is not nearly as bad as in the case of the Marshall scholars. We are dealing with people who will be coming here under this scheme, and we want to make sure that they are reasonably widely distributed in geographical areas and in the various university institutions of the country.
I am sorry that I have to take the 11,000 as representing the 7,000, but I think that in the circumstances it is a fair but rough guide, and of the 11,000 we find that 4,600 were enrolled at London University. That is about 42 per cent. In the "redbrick" institutions, the 14 individual institutions which I have taken collectively, the figure was about 25 per cent. At Oxbridge—taking the two universities together—it was 16 per cent., at the Scottish universities 13 per cent. and at the Welsh universities 3 per cent. There is an undue preponderance at London—42 per cent.—and a very heavy under-utilisation of the "redbrick" universities, for 25 per cent. scattered over 14 institutions is rather less than 2 per cent. for each institution.
A situation seems to exist in which the Commission should take great care about this problem. It is not an extreme problem, as it was for the Marshall scholarships, but it is significant enough to warrant the Commission's serious attention. We do not want the students coming from the Commonwealth all to be clustered together in one institution.
There are too many in proportion in London. London is not the whole of the British Isles, and much of the way of life in this country is represented in the provincial universities, usually described as "red brick". The proportion of students going to these universities should be greatly increased. I need not go into the results which would flow from that. Generally speaking, it would mean a wider and fuller understanding of our habits and ways of life in this country.
It is not simply the geography of the matter and the separate individual institutions with which we are concerned in the Amendment; we are also concerned with the kind of institutions and the type of study of the students. There will probably be general agreement that a fair number of these students should be placed at the new colleges of advanced technology, if at all possible. These are institutions which, as far as one can judge, in the two or three years since they were given their new status have fairly well proved themselves. They are also gathering an increasing proportion of students to take their courses, and the diploma which they give at the end of the course is of considerable importance in our industrial life today. I suggest that these institutions should be brought within the universities attended by incoming students from the Commonwealth under the scheme.
These are perhaps the most obvious examples, but, in addition, I suggest that the adult education institutions should receive a number of these students. Ruskin and Fircroft were mentioned on Second Reading, but I suggest that we should perhaps widen the field of institutions receiving people for adult education beyond the individual colleges which are purely "adult " and make some arrangements for students to go to the extramural departments of our universities or even to be attached to an organisation such as W.E.A.
After all, in the under-developed territories or, to use the more correct expression of my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson), the technically less advanced territories, adult education is playing a considerable part nowadays, and in my opinion a very creative part of the adult education

taking place in various parts of Africa is often stimulated and organised by individual tutors from the universities in this country. There would be much to be gained by a two-way relationship which included people in adult education and the adult education departments of the universities, as well as the individual colleges.
People from Ghana and Nigeria, for instance, would be able to see the part played in our adult education by voluntary organisations such as W.E.A., which is the sort of thing that they cannot very well establish ab initio in their own countries. When a territory is being newly established the tendency is to set up a governmental or official agency, and it would be valuable to people in that situation to know how we run the universities, the Government and the voluntary organisations in co-operation. There are such useful things in adult education elsewhere as the experience of the St. Francis Xavier University, Nova Scotia, in the establishment of co-operative organisations. Knowledge of that kind of activity on the part of the university would be a great advantage to students from the technically less advanced territories. That is, of course, outside the ambit of the Bill, but I mention it to show that adult education is a field in which there is a great interplay of new ideas, many of which can be extremely helpful to the technically less advanced territories.
Another type of institution which should receive some of these students is the college which is concerned with less academic matters than is the ordinary university or technical college course. For instance, if one looks at the institutions to which the overseas students go in this country one finds many of them going to such institutions as the Royal Academy of Music, the Royal College of Music, the Royal Academy of Dramatic Art, the Old Vic Theatre School and the Architectural Association. I will not make a list of these, but I want to pick out one to suggest how important some of these things can be. There is the University of London School of Librarianship. Librarianship is one of the things which will be of considerable importance for the development of education in a number of technically less advanced parts of the Commonwealth. It would be a very good thing if this scheme could be used for study of such matters as librarianship, the


theatre and music, all of which are important in the developing educational life of a new community.
Further, I suggest that some of these students should be sent to non-institutional places of training. Some of them will be interested in industry, commerce, banking, insurance, and so on, and we ought to ask the Commission to keep in mind the possibility of making arrangements for post-graduate training in banking, insurance and industry, for instance, for people who will not necessarily be enrolled inside the walls of a college or attend college classes.
That is the kind of thing which we have in mind in the Amendment. I should like to think that the post-graduate students who in the main are contemplated under this scheme will not simply be students who will do a research degree, the normal post-graduate activity, but will be students who will add professional qualifications in two years after their more general education. I have in mind a student having a science degree and spending two years learning the application of science, modern engineering or something of that kind. I hope that the Commission will find it as possible to fit in these students as to fit in students who are to spend a couple of years in advanced, specialised research work in their own field of study.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Hector Hughes: I should like to support the Amendment which has been proposed so persuasively by my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Malcolm MacPherson). He gave a number of details which might fairly be regarded as guiding lines or principles for the guidance of the Commonwealth Scholarship Commission, but he did not put all of those in the Amendment. It is a very moderate one and supplies something which is lacking in the Clause which he seeks to amend.
My hon. Friend merely asks that two indications should be given to the Commission, which I think the Commission would welcome, because there are not, in the Clause, any indications of principles or any guiding lines to actuate the Commission in the selection of students. The Clause is very wide. It gives powers to the Commission in the selection of reci-

pients of awards and the making of arrangements for placing them at universities, but it does not say what the Commission must have in mind. I hope that the Commission will be composed of men and women of great distinction who will have their own ideas about the principles on which they should act in selecting students.
There is no guiding line in the Clause, nothing to indicate what is in the mind of Parliament about the method by which students should be selected. The Amendment supplies that guiding line and indicates a principle which is absent from the Clause. The Amendment asks the Commission to act upon two ideas, namely, the widest practicable distribution of recipients and distribution according to locality and the subject of study.
The converse of that, if the Commission were a thoroughly perverse Commission—which I am sure it would not be—would be for the Commission to select recipients of scholarships from one university or from one Commonwealth country. That would be thoroughly bad, but it could happen. The Amendment would negative anything of that sort. It does not go to the other extreme, but it provides principles and a guiding line for the Commission which I am sure the Commission would welcome. I ask the Minister to accept the Amendment.

The Minister of State, Commonwealth Relations Office (Mr. C. J. M. Alport): I think that I can assure the hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Malcolm MacPherson) that the general approach which he expressed in his speech to this problem of placing students is one with which the Government fully agree and which, I am quite certain, will be in the mind of the Commission when it is established and begins to enter upon its work. I think that the Committee generally will agree with me when I say that the Commission should have three considerations in mind when placing scholars at universities and other institutions in this country.
It would be right that the Commission, first, should consider any preference that the individual coming here for a scholarship should express about a particular university or institution. We are not dealing with automatons but with people invited to this country to take advantage


of facilities available here for their graduate or post-graduate training. And we would wish them, if possible, and when appropriate, to have a say in the nature and character of the institution in which they would be spending two or three years.
Secondly, the Commission must ensure that the university or college selected provides proper and adequate facilities for the study or research upon which the student or scholar would be engaged. Thirdly, and here we come to the object of the Amendment, it is most important in our view that this body of scholars and Fellows coming to this country from overseas should be spread as far as possible over the full field of the academic life of the United Kingdom, both geographically and from the point of view of the many subjects which they will be coining here to study.
I was recently in Liverpool and was introduced, not for the first time, to the work of the School of Tropical Medicine at Liverpool University. I speak here without any great technical knowledge, but that school has a name in that field unequalled in almost the rest of the world. Again, the great distinction of the Medical School at Edinburgh University over many generations is very well known. Therefore, I would think that from the geographical point of view the Committee need have no fear that it would not be the purpose of the Commission to ensure that the facilities which are available in universities and technical colleges, colleges of advanced technology, and other institutions not directly connected with academic life in the full sense of the word but which can provide valuable training, will be used as appropriate and to the best of our ability.
In my speech on Second Reading, I made specific reference to the inclusion of the study of music and drama and other allied cultural subjects. As for the W.E.A., an organisation in the work of which many of us have taken part in the past, I should have thought that where a scholar came from overseas to study our extra-mural work it would be appropriate that, using as his base an extra-mural department of a university, he should undertake field-work in conjunction with the W.E.A. I should have

thought that to be an appropriate way of studying that subject.
Interested as I am in adult education, I am quite certain that the development of that education in this country over the years would be of interest to some of the less technically developed countries of the Commonwealth which will be sending students here. If it were to arise that the distribution of the scholars and Fellows coming here was not as widespread as we envisage, it is possible, under Clause 1 (7), for the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations to give directions to the Commission to ensure that it complies with any general broad principles in the administration of the scheme which would seem to the Government to be right and proper. But let me make it quite clear that it is our intention throughout our approach to the scheme that the Commission should be as free as possible to exercise its own wisdom, initiative and experience without the issuing of special directions, unless that necessity arose.
I hope that the hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs will feel that it is not necessary to press the Amendment, that we are very much in sympathy with its purpose and that if it is necessary to take action it can be, and indeed will be, done administratively. We do not anticipate that it will be necessary. I am quite convinced that the Commission, once it has embarked on its work, will approach it in the spirit which motivated the hon. Member in moving the Amendment.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: May I ask the Minister a question? In putting forward to the Committee reasons why the Amendment should be resisted, the hon. Gentleman has drawn attention to subsection (7) of Clause 1, and has pointed out that under the Bill there is power for the Secretary of State to give directions to the Commission on how it shall discharge its functions. Could he give us an assurance that those directions will be made public, so that we may know how the Commission will discharge its functions in acordance with such directions as may be given by the Secretary of State? If the Minister could give us an assurance to that effect, it would affect me materially.

Mr. Alport: Yes; I can assure the hon. Gentleman that if directions are given by the Secretary of State, particularly on matters in which we know the House to be interested, those directions will be published.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: The assurance given by the Minister to my hon. Friend goes a considerable way to meeting the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Malcolm MacPherson). I am bound to say, however, that the Minister made almost as good a speech in support of the Amendment as that of my hon. Friend and I could not see why he had to resist including these words in the Bill. Of course, we hope that the Commission when appointed, will pay close attention to the comments that are being made in these proceedings. We hope also that the Secretary of State will keep a careful watch on matters to make sure that the point is looked at closely. Indeed, we tabled the Amendment in the first place primarily because of the point made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford (Mr. Woodhouse) during the Second Reading debate.
I hope that the Minister will understand that there are real grounds for anxiety here. My hon. Friend the Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs quoted figures. It is unusual for two sets of academic statistics to agree but, as far as I could see, my hon. Friend's statistics agreed almost exactly with those I have. As he said, there is a marked disproportion at the moment, taking overseas and, therefore, presumably, Commonwealth students as a whole, in their distribution throughout the United Kingdom. For instance, London University has 21 per cent. of the university students of the United Kingdom, but has 42 per cent. of the overseas students. Oxbridge has 17·7 per cent. of the university population of the United Kingdom but has 27 per cent. of the overseas students. On the other hand, Redbrick has only 25 per cent. of the overseas students but provides 38 per cent. of the university places in the country. The disparity in Scotland is not so great, but it is large enough to be watched. There, 13 per cent. of the students come from other areas, whereas Scotland provides 17·2 per cent. of the university places.
When we come to the technical side, which is particularly important in connection with Commonwealth scholarships, the disproportion in relation to London is even bigger. At present, London has 60 per cent. of the overseas students who are studying technical subjects. This seems grossly disproportionate when one remembers that, although the technical education facilities in London are good, London is not necessarily the greatest, and it is certainly not the biggest of the industrial and technological centres of the country. I hope, therefore, that the Secretary of State will watch this point closely.
I disagree with my hon. Friend's emphasis on one point. He described the overwhelming preponderance of "Oxbridge" places for the Marshall and Commonwealth fund scholars. He said this preponderance was not so great when dealing with Commonwealth students in this country as a whole, but the object of the Bill is not to provide places for a general body of students from Commonwealth countries. They are to be special people and these are to be important scholarships. We all hope that they will establish for themselves the same prestige that attaches to Rhodes scholars or to some of the other special scholarships. In the ordinary way I think that a substantial number, a much higher number than the general body of students chosen for these scholarships, will want to come to Oxford or Cambridge or to London University. As the Minister has said, it is important that if a person is to be awarded one of the scholarships his wishes should be taken into account.
4.45 p.m.
I assume that the purpose of the Commission, and the United Kingdom's part in these arrangements, is to have before it a fairly wide selection of applicants for the 500 places, so that it can make a choice from this fairly wide number of applicants with the consideration of geographical and academic distribution in mind. It will be a considerable problem and a great deal of effort will be needed on the part of the Commission, and maybe on the part of the Secretary of State in due course, to make sure that the motive behind my hon. Friend's Amendment is fulfilled.
This leads me to the question of the Commission, which is dealt with in later Amendments. I hope that when the members are appointed they will be pressed strongly not to show any academic timidity in making awards. I am thinking now not only in terms of ensuring that the scholars are spread widely throughout the United Kingdom, but also that the disciplines for which the awards are made are on a wide scale and have a practical application.
The countries of Africa have a very small educated elite. However brilliant, in the scholarly sense, students may be, coming from one of those countries they will almost inevitably be dragged into the general public life of their country on their return. Almost inevitably, they will find themselves taken out of their academic cloisters and made to play an important part in the general public life of their country. Therefore, I emphasise the point made by my hon. Friend, that in the post-graduate courses particularly we should give these people an opportunity to study here in a way which will have the maximum public usefulness when they go back into positions of leadership and responsibility in their own countries.
I believe that the award of this comparatively small number of scholarships should be given the same emphasis as the Americans give with their Smith-Munt scholarships. We should try to ensure that they are awarded not only to good scholars, but to those who, when they return, will play an important part in the general life of their countries. Therefore, I hope that considerable imagination will be used in making the awards and that all the points made by my hon. Friends about adult education, and so on, will receive special attention.
One of the special channels in which the awards will be most useful is that of general post-graduate work in political science, particularly for students from African and Asian countries, and especially from the emerging countries in Africa, to come here, as do some of the Fulbright scholars, and study the workings of our political parties and political systems. In the long run, that would produce valuable results, and it would also be useful if at least one of the awards in the early stages was for trade union studies.
Here again, it is important that we do not apply too rigid an academic criterion to a number of the awards. The kind of person who so frequently come and sits on the opposite side of the table from Ministers in the Government to high-light political questions in Africa is not always the one who has acquired a normal academic background. I hope, therefore. that this will be taken into account.
I also hope that the point made by the hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Miss Vickers) during the Second Reading debate, about awards to women, will be looked at carefully. We shall all be scrutinising the Commission's choice of the first 250 scholars, I hope that it will not be necessary for the Secretary of State to issue any general directions to the Commission about distribution, but if it is necessary I hope that he will not hesitate to do so.

Mr. Malcolm MacPherson: In view of what the Minister has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Arthur Creech Jones: I beg to move, in page 2, line 9, to leave out "high".
Clause 1 is certainly not particularly clear when one tries to define its exact meaning. It will be noticed that the appointments to the Commission shall consist of not less than nine plus the chairman and it might go to 14 members but
not less than four of the members shall be persons appointed as the holders of high academic office.
I should like to press the Minister to give us some definition of what he means by "high academic office".
I know that it is customary these days, whenever a commission, or a court of inquiry, or a Royal Commission is to be appointed, to look round to discover what vice-chancellors at their universities are available. It seems that in most of our Government Departments there is a small panel of vice-chancellors and they are called upon time and time again to serve on public inquiries.
I hope that in the drafting of the Clause the Minister is not thinking only of vice-chancellors. Many vice-


chancellors are of great distinction and would be admirably suited to the kind of work which the Commission would do, but I would point out to the Minister that there are other fish in the sea and a number of persons holding high office in the academic world who are worthy of consideration. I am thinking, for instance, of the Warden of All Souls, or the head of the London School of Economics. They are not vice-chancellors, but, at least, they are people of academic distinction whose service on a commission such as this would be of very real value. Therefore, I should like to know what precisely the Minister means by "high office".
Does he, for instance, include the Lord Rector of a Scottish university? "Jimmy" Edwards, as a case in point, holds that distinction. Would he be treated as a person holding high office? I should like to know what is in the Minister's mind, because the interpretation of this Clause may be extremely narrow. I hope that it will be interpreted in as liberal and wide a way as possible.
Let me also point out that, presumably, the four members chosen must be actual holders of high academic office. We all know, if vice-chancellors may be selected, that they generally hold office for only a year, although sometimes for more than a year. I believe that at Oxford the holding of that high office is changed from time to time. Will the persons selected for the Commission be relieved of their work on the Commission when they cease to hold high office in the universities? Take the question of distinguished persons who are nearing retirement. Let me give, as an example, Sir Alexander Carr-Saunders, who has rendered enormous service in overseas development in Commonwealth matters and Professor Priestley, the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Birmingham, who is similarly interested in overseas Commonwealth problems. Are we to understand that when they ceased to hold office they would have automatically ceased to be members of the Commission? There is also Durham University. The present Vice-Chancellor, Sir James Duff, has been used considerably in Government work in connection with Commonwealth questions. Is it

likely that he would be asked to withdraw from the Commission at the end of his year of office as Vice-Chancellor of Durham when the section of the University at Newcastle takes over? There they alternate. One year it is Durham that has the vice-chancellor and the following year it is Newcastle. I want to know what is meant by the phrase "holders of high office".
While discussing the composition of the Commission, I should refer to the fact that in the academic world there are a number of people who are extraordinarily able for this kind of work. I hope that at least one, or possibly more than one, will be a distinguished woman professor. I would mention, for instance, the Principal of Bedford College, who has played a tremendous part in university education in the Commonwealth and who would make a most admirable person for a Commission of this kind. At Oxford, there is Miss Margery Perham, who is in charge of the colonial side of the Nuffield College. There is also Lady Barbara Wootton, who is distinguished academically. I hope that at least one of such women will be included in the Commission. There are other distinguished ladies whom I could well mention and who have played a most notable part in Commonwealth education and the extension of university education overseas.
There are also distinguished academic people whose discipline is of very great importance, such as the discipline at London University of a man like Professor Ashton, in economic history, or Professor Titmuss, in social science. I would ask that academic persons of this quality should be brought into most careful consideration when the constitution of the Commission is being dealt with.
I do not want to repeat what I said in the Second Reading debate about the wide choice of other than academic persons for service on the Commission. Many people concerned with education, including those concerned with adult education and the teaching of social science, are worthy of consideration. But, apart from those, consideration should be given to people in industry, finance, commerce, and even trade unionism, where a great deal of educational work is being done.
I would like to see the Commission as broadly based as possible. It should not be made up entirely of academic people, but should include people who have a real knowledge of the workaday world and also a deep appreciation of academic standards and facilities available for further study. They would be able to bring their wide range of experience of life into the work of the Commission.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. E. Fletcher: I support my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Creech Jones). It seems to me that the introduction of the adjective "high" is most unfortunate. As far as I know, there is no precedent for it. We are, therefore, entitled to hear from the Minister what, precisely, he means by "high academic office". It is obviously not a term of art. It does not admit of any precise definition; indeed, there is no definition in the Bill. Will the Minister therefore tell us what this new phrase is intended to mean? What does he regard as "high academic office"?
Does he confine the term to the vice-chancellors of universities? If so, does he include ex-vice-chancellors? Or does the definition extend to the heads of colleges, including the Warden of All Souls? If it is extended as far as that, is it limited to the heads of colleges, and does it exclude professors of universities, including professors of long service and great distinction, who, perhaps, in addition to their teaching experience, have also had administrative experience of the work of the universities to which they are attached? If professors are included in the phrase, is that the limit of its extent, and are readers and others of similar distinction excluded? We are entitled to know.
I agree with my right hon. Friend that in these days there is an unfortunate tendency to burden people who are exercising important offices and administrative duties in universities with all kinds of extraneous functions, as members of Royal Commissions, Government committees, and various work of an inter-university kind. There must be some limit to the term, otherwise the Clause is not in the interests of the universities or of the persons about whom we are talking, or of the carrying out of new functions with which the Bill is concerned.
I am not sure that it is necessarily a good idea to stipulate that the Commission should include four persons who are holders of high academic office. It might be much better if the net was deliberately extended to include persons who have recently retired from high academic office. My right hon. Friend put a very pertinent question. He asked what will happen to people who are appointed to the Commission as holders of high academic office but subsequently cease to hold such office. That is particularly relevant to posts like those of vice-chancellors of certain provincial universities, which are held in rotation. I should have thought that if such persons were appointed to the Commission they ought not to have to retire from it because they cease to hold the office which qualified them for appointment in the first place.
But I go even further. I hope that, as a result of reflecting upon this debate, the Minister may think it fit to recast the wording of the Clause so that it ends with the words:
four members shall be persons appointed as holding or as having held office of academic distinction.
I should have thought that the Minister would be able to get a much wider recruitment if he adopted that suggestion.
We are all anxious that the Commission should be fully representative of the many diverse interests connected with the objects which the Bill is intended to serve. Its members will have quite arduous duties to perform, and I hope that, as far as possible, they will be drawn from the relatively leisured or retired classes, so that they will be able to give proper attention to their duties. For those reasons I not only support the Amendment, but wish it had gone further. I hope that, as a result of considering the debate, at a later stage of the proceedings the Minister may be able to find a happier phrase to give expression to the intention behind the Clause.

Mr. H. A. Marquand: I hope that the Minister will be able to accept the Amendment, which is put forward very seriously. It could do no harm to the purposes that he has in mind. The deletion of the word "high" will mean that he will still be able to appoint persons holding high academic


office. The Amendment will widen the field of selection. Apart from that, the Clause has the defect of definition to which my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) has already drawn attention. Nobody knows what the phrase "high academic office" means. If the word "high" remains in the Clause there may later be a good deal of argument whether a quite suitable person is legally qualified to serve on the Commission, although the Minister wants him to do so.
I want to go even further than my right hon. and hon. Friend in urging upon the Minister the desirability of having power to select one or two people who do not hold particularly high academic office. I am, naturally, in favour of people who do hold such an office serving on the Commission; indeed, as a former academician I would fight very strongly for their inclusion. It would be quite absurd if the Commission consisted entirely of people who had no knowledge of the ways in which universities work.
On the other hand, it would be a great mistake to have, as the sole representatives of the academic world, persons who, by the present definition, would inevitably tend to be middle-aged, if not elderly. We do not want to have this representation confined entirely to men who, having risen to high positions, necessarily take an administrative rather than a human view of their task of selection. The older we get—and this is true of nearly all of us, although perhaps we should except the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Miss Vickers)—the more out of touch we get with young people, and the more difficult it is to remain completely en rapport with them to understand their moods and fancies, and what sometimes seems to us their eccentric behaviour.
I would like to see on the Commission one or two persons whose time has lately been occupied mainly in university administration. Such men have often had wide opportunities of travelling to the various countries from which they will have to select candidates from these fellowships. They have a knowledge of conditions overseas which can be very valuable. I am not against the election of one or two vice-chancellors and senior

professors, but I very much want to see on the Commission a few much younger people who have not attained high academic office—who have not reached the rank of professor.
I assume that the words "high academic office" would mean all posts from that of professor upwards, but would not include posts below that rank. There ought to be on the Commission the kind of younger man who has been abroad and studied in a foreign university in completely different surroundings from those of his own country. He should be a man who has undergone the experience of having to get in touch with an entirely new group of students with different patterns of behaviour and who knows what it is like to have to settle down in a new environment. In short, a man who has been through the mill. He should be a man who has been through what these Commonwealth students will have to go through, but who is still young enough to feel that he fully understands them. At the interview he will be able to put understanding and sympathetic questions that will put the young men and women coming before the Board at their ease.
Nothing puts a person more at his ease than encountering someone who is not much older than himself and, therefore, does not feel intimidated by him. Nothing would be better than to have on the board somebody who, by reason of his years, is still in sympathy with the young people, understands their difficulties, and brings out the best in them.

Mr. Hector Hughes: I support the Amendment. By a curious anomaly the Clause is more perfect without the word "high" than it is with it, because "high" is a relative word. What is "high"? Some academics may be higher than others. Is it to be a chancellor, a vice-chancellor, a professor, a bachelor of arts, or a failed bachelor of arts? It is meaningless as it stands. Either the word "high" should remain in the Clause and an interpretation Clause should be added to the Bill, or the word should be taken out. Being a relative ward it is meaningless as it stands.
The Commission will, presumably, be appointed by the Secretary of State who is given ample power under the Bill to


deal with a perverse Commission. For example, Clause 1 (7) reads:
In the discharge of their functions the Commission shall comply with any directions given to them by the Secretary of State:….
That is a very wide power and if the members of the Commission are "low" rather than "high" in exercising their duties the Secretary of State can deal with them under Clause 7.
I therefore suggest that the case for the elimination of the word "high" is unanswerable, and I hope that the Minister will accept the Amendment.

Mr. Robert Edwards: Far be it from me to delay the proceedings of the Committee, but the Amendment is an important one because the work of the Commission is vital to the Bill. The points that have been made are so important that the Minister ought to give way and accept the Amendment.
5.15 p.m.
What is needed most in the underdeveloped areas? They need primary school teachers. That is their greatest requirement. They need trade union organisers to organise the workers and institute some rational system of negotiation so that there is discipline among the workers. They need advisers in the development of co-operative societies. The Commission must have practical people serving on it.
I would like to see a man like Mr. James Johnson, who was the Member for Rugby in the last Parliament, a man of vast experience in colonial affairs, a man of practical experience, a real idealist, and an ex-schoolmaster, on the Commission. He is not at the top of the academic world, but men of that calibre would be of tremendous import on a Commission of this nature. I would also like to see a man like Sir Vincent Tewson on the Commission. He has done a lot of work in helping toilers in the underdeveloped areas to build up their own trade unions. Mr. Marshall, the head of the Co-operative College at Loughborough, would also be a great asset to the Commission.
Men and women with practical ability and knowledge of functional organisation in the underdeveloped areas would make an important contribution to the success of what we intend to do under the Bill. I hope that the Minister will accept this important Amendment.

Mr. Alport: When considering the Amendment, and, indeed, the wording of the Bill, it never crossed my mind that the Warden of All Souls, or the principal of the London School of Economics, were not included under the technical term of occupying high academic office. I am sure that it would be as much as my life would be worth to stand here and say that they did not occupy high academic office. They would, of course, both come within the definition.
In our view, however, the definition extends further than that. It extends to the heads of houses in universities, to the principals of technical colleges, and to anyone who, in the words of the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum, are active in academic life in a particular sense. The success of the scheme will depend primarily on the willing and constant co-operation of university authorities with the Commission, and with all those who are entrusted with carrying it out. It is, therefore, most important that the Commission should contain representatives from universities and academic life who have a high contemporary influence in that field. That does not exclude some additional fifth person who, let us say, represents a different strata of academic life; perhaps a junior Fellow or junior lecturer who has particular reasons for understanding the problems from the point of view of his contemporaries.
We are most anxious that the Commission should have represented on it four individuals who carry influence in the world of the universities, the colleges of advanced technology, and, indeed, all the senior institutions. They will enable co-operation between the Commission and those who are responsible executively for the management of the affairs of the academic world to proceed easily and in close co-ordination. I think that the word "high" has significance, and I hope that the explanation which I have given to the Committee will enable the right hon. Gentleman not to press the Amendment.
Let me make it clear to the Committee that my noble Friend the Secretary of State intends to include a woman in the membership of the Commission when it is appointed. We have already made it clear that it is our intention that the Commission should include in its membership representatives of industry and


of the trade unions. I have already said that the inclusion of four persons of high academic standing, holding high academic office, does not exclude other representatives from the academic world. As far as possible, although the membership must be limited in some way, the Commission will be representative of those interests that have a right and a contribution to make to the success of the scheme.
Above all, let me emphasise that the organisations that have the greatest contribution to make to the success of the scheme are the universities, the technical colleges, and the institutions of learning in this country, and therefore their right to have members on the Commission should be preserved. That is the purpose of the Clause.

Mr. Hector Hughes: I thank the Minister for giving way. I want to draw attention to the fact that the draftsmen of the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum thought so little of the word "high" that he did not use it. He has paraphrased this part of the subsection by saying:
At least four members are to be persons active in academic life.
He does not say a word about "high".

Mr. Alport: That is true. As I pointed out, the object is to ensure that they are active in the executive departments of academic life, because the organising of the scheme will depend to a large extent on the co-operation between the Commission and the universities.
I have tried to reassure not only my hon. Friend for Plymouth, Devonport (Miss Vickers), who raised the matter of female representation on the Commission on Second Reading, but other hon. Members that there is scope for representation on the Commission for all those interests which have a contribution to make to the work of the scholarship and fellowship scheme. I wish to emphasise to the Committee that if a member who is appointed because of his active participation in the executive work of a university subsequently ceases to hold the office there is no reason why he should not continue as a member of the Commission although no longer included among the four specifically holding high academic office during their appointment

to the Commission. Therefore, I do not think that there is really any danger or prospect of the various difficulties which hon. Members have raised actually eventuating.
We are most anxious to reassure the universities that they will be properly and adequately represented on the Commission with which they will have to work very closely and which will be dependent to a very large extent upon their willing and close co-operation throughout the currency of the scheme. We believe that this provision will reassure them, and, therefore, as I have said, I hope that on these grounds the right hon. Gentleman will not press his Amendment.

Mr. Creech Jones: Before the Minister concludes, may I ask him about the durability, the period, of these appointments? I referred to a vice-chancellor—I think that that is what he is called—of Durham University who ceases to hold office after a year and then a representative of Newcastle University takes over. It is probable that on such a Commission we should want a person of the calibre of Sir James Duff. Does it follow that because such a man ceases to hold office one year, even though he may take it up again after an interval of another year, he is to cease to hold his place on the Commission because of the annual appointment made from Durham?
Supposing one wished to have Sir Alexander Carr-Saunders. It is perfectly true that he has finished as Principal of the London School of Economics, but his work is still going forward, I believe, under the auspices of the Colonial Office in regard to higher educational development. When he ceased to be the Principal would he have automatically been removed from his appointment on the Commission? It seems to me that, if we are to chop and change, because there may be no vacancy on the Commission at the time, the holder of the office will cease to serve.

Mr. Alport: I think that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that it would not be proper for me to apply my arguments to the case of a particular individual, but, generally speaking, there is no reason why someone who has been appointed to the Commission as a holder of high academic office, and who ceases


to hold that office, should cease to be a member of the Commission.
The right hon. Gentleman will, I am sure, recognise that my noble Friend can appoint not less than a total of 10 and not more than a total of 15. Therefore, as I see it, there will be vacancies available if it is necessary to continue the services of a distinguished member of the Commission after he has ceased to qualify under this Clause.
We think it most important that we should reassure the universities that the Commission should always contain at least four individuals of great distinction who are engaged contemporaneously in the active executive work of the universities or the high institutions of technology.

Mr. Marquand: I really cannot see why the Minister cannot accept the Amendment. As I have already said, if the word "high" is omitted he is still entirely at liberty to appoint academic persons with extremely high distinctions. He could fill the four posts by gentlemen of over 70 years of age. I hope that he would not, but he could. If the word " high " were removed there would be nothing to prevent him filling all the posts with persons holding high office, yet if he leaves the word in the Bill it tends to be restrictive.
The hon. Gentleman has not given us any real assurance that among the remaining members of the Commission he will see that a younger academic person who has not yet attained high academic office will be included. If we could have an assurance of that kind, if the hon. Gentleman would say, "I will undertake to see that among the remainder of this group there will be someone like the kind of man you have in mind," then we might be satisfied though I still cannot see why the Amendment cannot be accepted.
It would not make the slightest difference at all to the action which the Secretary of State would be empowered to take if the word were not in the Clause, but it would widen the scope of his choice if the word were omitted. Rarely has there been an Amendment with more merit in it than this one to delete one word from a proposed Measure. I would not wish to divide the Committee unnecessarily on a Bill

of this kind, on which we all so much agree. I appreciate, of course, that the Minister of State is not the final authority here. The final authority is his noble Friend the Secretary of State. When a Minister is not occupying the highest office in a Department he may be at a disadvantage on these occasions. I appreciate that, and that may be the situation here.
If the hon. Gentleman feels that he cannot accept the Amendment, which would not, in fact, limit his powers in any way, but would leave him free to fill four posts with senior high academic authorities, and as we cannot ask him to make an appropriate Amendment on Report because, in all probability, there will not be a Report stage if Amendments are not accepted, will he draw the attention of his noble Friend to what has been said here today and convey to him the strong feeling of those of us on this side of the Committee that there really ought to be in this group representing the academic world some young men, around the age of 30, who have not yet joined the Establishment whether by reason of honours or choice, or because of hardening of the arteries? Let us have younger men on the Commission.
If the hon. Gentleman will say that he will draw his noble Friend's attention to the importance of this matter and ask him to consider it when the bill reaches another place, I shall be satisfied not to divide the Committee.

Mr. Alport: May I say that as far as I am concerned I would, of course, willingly draw my noble Friend's attention to the point made by the right hon. Gentleman and also by his right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Creech Jones) at the beginning of his speech. I can assure the Committee that it is my noble Friend's intention that the Commission when appointed shall be as broadly representative as possible. I would have thought that it followed logically that that representation should be on an age group basis, or representative of generations, as well as representative of interests in this field. I am sure that my noble Friend would consider very sympathetically, when the time came to make the appointments, the points that have been made by the right hon. Gentleman today.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: Before the right hon. Gentleman concludes, may I just put this point to him? May not the Secretary of State get himself into a rather invidious position if someone appointed as one of the four holders of high academic office changes his office for another? The Minister has said that this would not mean that that person would have to leave the Commission—that there is room and flexibility—but, presumably, there would then be only three people who, in the formal sense, would hold that high academic office, and a fourth would have to be appointed. Will there not, therefore, be occasions when the Secretary of State will be in the embarrassing position of saying to the academic figure who is then holding the post that he has to cease to hold it?

Mr. Alport: For the reasons I gave, I do not think that any embarrassment would eventuate. The truth is that there is a good deal of flexibility about the Commission. As I said earlier to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand), we will certainly consider the arguments advanced this afternoon—and, indeed, during the Second Reading debate, because a number of detailed points were put then. With that assurance, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will now feel able to withdraw his Amendment.

Mr. Marquand: The Minister has gone some way towards meeting me and, of course, there will be opportunities to draw the attention of noble Lords in another place to this point before Parliament finally parts with the Bill. Solely, then, to avoid the appearance of disharmony in the Committee on the Bill. Which we strongly favour, but still regretting that the Minister was not prepared to accept this very simple Amendment, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Miss Joan Vickers (Plymouth. Devon-port): I wish, first, to thank my right hon. Friend for agreeing that there will be a woman on the Commission.
Clause 1 (6) says that committees may be appointed by the Commission to help it. During the Second Reading debate,

hospitality to students, and their reception—deciding where they were to live, and so on—were considered to be of great importance. I should like to know whether the Commission may appoint a hospitality committee if it wishes to do so.
I do not want to say anything against the excellent work of the British Council—it does wonderful work—but my right hon. Friend will recollect that several of my hon. Friends supported the idea of a hospitality scheme for these students. They will be here for only a short time, and we think that they should have the right to meet and mix with people of their own intellectual standing.
Can I be told whether this provision means that the Commission may appoint a committee, not necessarily consisting of those with academic qualifications, to discharge such functions as hospitality? Clause 1 (1, d) says that, among other things, the Commission will have the duty of
… discharging any other functions arising out of the said Plan which the Secretary of State may assign to the Commission.
Could hospitality be one of those fuctions? That, perhaps, might meet the point made about getting younger people to help in this work for these students.

Mr. Hector Hughes: I seek clarification of subsection (2) of the Clause, which deals with the classes of persons who may be selected for scholarships, and I want a declaration from the Minister, which he can easily give, because it will accord with the views expressed by the conferences from which the Bill sprang.
The Reports of both the Montreal and the Oxford Conferences indicated a desire, as has this debate, for the very widest Commonwealth selection. The Bill is designed to do this, but on the interpretation of this Clause I am not sure that the design is complete. The Clause sets up a Commission, which will be known as the Commonwealth Scholarship Commission in the United Kingdom, which is to be charged by subsection (1, a), with the duty, inter alia, of
selecting the recipients of awards arising out of the Commonwealth Scholarship and Fellowship Plan to persons coming to the United Kingdom,


Clause 1 (2) deals with the field of selection, and the point I seek to make here is whether that selection should be wide or narrow. The subsection says that
The persons to be selected in pursuance of paragraph (a) of the foregoing subsection shall be Commonwealth citizens or British protected persons (within the meaning of British Nationality Act, 1948) except"—
and I emphasise that word "except"—
where the Commission for special reasons
and I emphasise "special reasons"—
approved"—
and I emphasise the word "approved"—
by the Secretary of State, otherwise determine.
Several other important questions arise in connection with Clause 1, particularly in relation to subsection (1, a) and subsection (2), which I have mentioned. These important questions require explicit answer and clarification by the Minister of State, and I shall elaborate the points that I seek to bring to his attention as clearly as I can in a moment or two. What I have so far said is by way of preface, though I do not intend to make a long speech.
These are the other important questions that arise. Who are the persons who may be selected within the meaning of the British Nationality Act, 1948? What are the special reasons which should actuate the Commission in making exceptions to the rule? What reasons should actuate the Secretary of State in giving or withholding his approval? Should the exceptions be directed towards inclusion of or exclusion from the classes of possible beneficiaries?
Why these unusual powers to be given to the Commission to make what are called exceptions; or to the Secretary of State to approve or disapprove of the selection made by the Commission? Who shall determine the personnel of the Commission? Presumably, it will be the Secretary of State. By what principles is the Secretary of State to be actuated in selecting the members of the Commission, including those high academic persons who have just been mentioned?
What qualifications are members of the Commission to hold, and what are to be their characteristics? My hon. Friend the Member for Bilston (Mr. R. Edwards) suggested certain types of persons who would be useful on the Commission, but who are not academic persons at all. It

is, therefore, fair and relevant to ask by what principles would the Secretary of State be actuated in selecting the members of the Commission other than the four high academic people.
My last question is: should not the Commission, once appointed, be left to carry out its appointed task free from Ministerial interference? As I have mentioned, the Bill provides for Ministerial interference. It provides for the approval or disapproval of the Minister, the Minister is a politician, and in my submission it is wrong that the Commission, once appointed, should be subject to political control.
I go back to my question about the British Nationality Act. It is necessary to construe that Act in conjunction with this Bill to discover whether citizens of the Republic of Ireland—a most valuable set of students—may be selected to benefit, as, in my opinion, they should be.
Clause 1 (2) of the Bill provides that the persons who may be selected to benefit
…shall be Commonwealth citizens or British protected persons (within the meaning of the British Nationality Act, 1948)…".
The relevant part of the 1948 Act is Section 32. That is the interpretation Section, and subsection (1) refers to citizens of the Republic of Ireland in this way:
'Alien' means a person who is not a British subject, a British protected person or a citizen of Eire.
That clearly means that a citizen of Eire—now a citizen of the Republic of Ireland—is not an alien. If he is not an alien, my submission is that he should be treated as a person eligible for scholarships under the Bill. He is not an alien, he is not a foreigner, he is not within the Commonwealth—but he is associated with the Commonwealth in a great many ways.
In those circumstances, does the Minister agree that a citizen of the Republic of Ireland is entitled to benefit under this Clause? Does he agree that this is the intention of the Bill, as it was obviously the intention of the preceding conferences out of which it sprang? Does he agree that this Clause is obscure on the point and should, therefore, be taken back to be so


clarified as to make it clear that Irish students may be selected for scholarships?
The second point to which I want to draw the Minister's attention is this. What special reasons should actuate the Commission in making exceptions to the rule as to the persons who may be selected for scholarships? By what principle will the Commission be guided in selecting scholars? This is of the utmost importance, and guiding principles should be laid down, either in the Bill, or here and now by the Minister —but, preferably, in the Bill, by the House in advance—so as not to leave the matter obscure and at large.
The Commission may otherwise be actuated by religion, race or colour in a way that would deprive the plan of its chance of the success that the conferences desired. In our multi-racial Commonwealth we must pay equal respect to all religions, all races and all classes. Therefore, in my submission, this is the proper time to make clear by what principles the Commission will be guided in selecting beneficiaries for scholarships.
The Commission may, as I hope it will, consist of distinguished persons actuated by the noblest ideals, of high academic knowledge and wide experience, as mentioned in the Report. Here, perhaps, I may be allowed to remind the Committee of what the Report said on this point. On page 17 it is stated that
Common ideals in themselves are not enough. They need fertile soil in which to flourish; as the Montreal Conference recognised, economic well-being is an important condition of cultural development.
That was the wide and expansive way in which the conferences, out of which the Bill sprang, approached this matter. In my submission, the Bill is unworthy of those Reports.
Later, the same Report states:
The improvement of education in itself encourages economic growth by increasing the supply of trained people which an economy of growing complexity requires. It also develops in all responsible men and women the qualities of judgment and wisdom, insight and sympathy which become increasingly important as civilisation advances.
Those two short quotations make clear the broad and expansive way in which

the conferences approached this problem. I say that, while this is a good Bill, it is too narrow. This is a good Clause, but it is too narrow, and it is defective in the ways to which I have referred.
5.45 p.m.
I ask the Minister: are these the kind of principles, as adumbrated in the quotations which I have just read, which Clause 1 is designed to implement? Will they be applied by the Commission to that closely associated country which, in one sphere, produced Bernard Shaw and W. B. Yeats, and, in another and very different sphere, the Duke of Wellington and Field Marshal Lord Montgomery? The Minister should remember the breadth of view expressed in those Reports when considering the application of the British Nationality Act to the submissions which I am making.
The Report goes on:
The truth is that each country of the Commonwealth will be the richer and the more able to shoulder its responsibilities, not only towards its own people, but also to the world, if more of its abler citizens can share in the educational resources available throughout the Commonwealth.
That is the last quotation with which I shall trouble the Committee.
I pass now to my third point on Clause 1. It is an objection to the power given to the Minister to overrule the Commission. I believe that the Commission should consist of men and women of ability, distinction and experience, and by that I do not mean necessarily high academic distinction. Those people, once appointed to the Commission, should be appointed for a term of years, and they should be free from Governmental control—I withdraw the word "Governmental"—they should be free from ministerial or political control of any kind, though subject always to the control of Parliament. There should be no trace of politics in their procedure or practice.

Mr. R. Edwards: How could they be subject to the control of Parliament if they are not subject to the control of a Minister? There must be accountability.

Mr. Hughes: I thought that the submission I was making was clear. They should be subject to the control of Parliament. I say there should be no trace of politics in their procedure or practice,


otherwise they cannot envisage or implement the long-term policy which such a Commission should envisage and implement. If the Commission goes wrong—and here I answer my hon. Friend—it could be made subject to a Motion in Parliament, just as is a High Court judge. That would be the kind of check which this Commission, under Clause 1, would be subjected to.

The Chairman: There is no reference to a Motion in Parliament about this subject.

Mr. Hughes: I am referring to the powers of the Commission. Otherwise, the Commission might be treated in the unceremonious fashion that other Commissions have been treated by this Government, notably the Devlin Commission.
This is a notable Bill, which may be of great benefit to the Commonwealth. It is a very important Bill, but Clause 1 is imperfect and should be taken back so that it can be redrafted and made worthy of the occasion.

Mr. Malcolm MacPherson: I wish to raise a point about the drafting of Clause 1 which seems odd to me. I do not remember ever coming across this kind of thing before in a Bill. Clause 1 (1) states:
In this subsection 'the Commonwealth Scholarship and Fellowship Plan' means the Plan so named which was put forward by the Commonwealth Education Conference held at Oxford in July, nineteen hundred and fifty-nine.
This plan is referred to earlier in the Clause in relation to the duty of the Commission,
…arising out of the Commonwealth Scholarship and Fellowship Plan…
What is the plan? Is it part of the Bill? If so, how has it become part of the Bill? I have here the White Paper, "Commonwealth Scholarship and Fellowship Plan." Is this written into the Bill by the phrase contained in Clause I, and if so, why was not it done in the ordinary way by adding it as the First Schedule to the Bill? I take it that the text is not written into the Bill, and I should like an answer because the phraseology of the four lines which I have quoted seem to bear this out:
In this subsection 'The Commonwealth Scholarship and Fellowship Plan' means the plan so named which was put forward by the Commonwealth Education Conference…
The White Paper clearly was not put forward by the Conference, and so I wish to ask the Minister to explain this matter in a little more detail. What are we writing into the Bill by this phrase? Is it the text of the White Paper, and if so why was not it put in in the ordinary fashion? If not, what exactly will the law consist of when the Bill becomes an Act?

Mr. Marquand: It seems to me that the subsection referring to the Commonwealth Scholarship and Fellowship Plan and the duty laid on the Commission to discharge the functions arising out of the plan can best be understood by referring to the Long Title of the Bill, which is to:
Made provision for matters arising out of the recommendations of the Commonwealth Education Conference.
Therefore, before we part with this Clause which establishes and constitutes the Commission and gives it certain duties, it is incumbent on us to remind ourselves, and to draw to the attention of the Commission when it is finally established, what were the matters arising out of the recommendations of the Commonwealth Education Conference.
The Conference set those out at some length and it is worth while putting them on record. The Conference says of its plan:
It will enrich each country of the Commonwealth by enabling an increasing number of its abler citizens to share in the wide range of educational resources available throughout the Commonwealth, and thus promote equality of educational opportunity at the highest level.
That is one principle clearly laid down by the Conference which must be observed by the Commission—equality of educational opportunity. It states later on:
The Commonwealth is a new experiment in human relationship. It is founded on a belief in the worth and dignity of the human individual and a recognition of the value of freedom and co-operative action.
That is a second principle arising out of the recommendations of the Conference —the worth and dignity of the human individual. Then, again, it says:
All races and peoples have made their characteristic contribution to the building up of knowledge, culture and values and all have something to give.
There, I think, is the third principle which should guide the Commission in


its work and the Secretary of State in the directions he may see fit at a later date to give to the Commission in supervising its work generally. Clearly, it must abide by those three principles, equality of educational opportunity, recognition of the worth and dignity of the human individual and recognition that all races participate in this. It seems to me that these are the three principles that to some extent my hon. Friends were searching for.
In asking the Commission to discharge its functions we must remind it of these three guiding principles. It has a two-way function to perform. It has to select, from candidates presented to it from overseas Commonwealth countries, recipients of awards in this country, and at the same time it has to select candidates from this country whose names could be submitted to receiving countries overseas. I think that the Commission can be relied on, when receiving such students from overseas as are recommended to it, to implement those three principles. I am sure that the Commission will not discriminate among them in any way whatever. It will not regard a person with black skin as being one with any less dignity, or a less worthy human being, than a person with a skin of any other colour. It will not discriminate among men and women on religious principles. Everyone may come here. Our universities long ago got rid of discrimination. Formerly they discriminated against Jews, Catholics and women, but that it not the case now. There is freedom of entry and equality of educational opportunity. We have no difficulties on that count and we should welcome these students from overseas from wherever they may come and whatever practices may operate in the countries from which they come. It is not the fault of students, if they come, shall we say, from South Africa, that discrimination is practised in their country.
But when we are sending students overseas, we must recognise that the Commission is under an obligation, if it is to fulfil the ideals of the Conference set out in the memorable words that I have quoted, to see that, directly or indirectly, it does not give any encouragement to practices of discrimination.

When sending our young men and women abroad it must take care that it does not appear to tolerate or to give an imprimatur of approval to any university which may be forced—perhaps unwillingly as some are, as we know—to adopt a policy of discrimination.
6.0 p.m.
I know, Sir Gordon, that in not selecting an Amendment which I tabled, you have it very much in mind that there is to be another debate on this subject on Monday. I will not attempt to anticipate that debate at all, but I think I can rightly ask the Minister of State whether he agrees with the description and the duties of the Commission which I have described; whether he agrees with us on this side of the Committee that the unanimous conclusion to which the Commonwealth Education Conference came does and should guide the Commission in discharging its duties, and that his noble Friend in supervising the Commission will have clearly in mind that it is these principles of equality of educational opportunity, equality between the races and the basic human dignity of the individual regardless of sex or colour which should actuate the Commission in the work it does in this two-way traffic between our country and the other countries of the Common-wealth.

Mr. Alport: Neither will I anticipate the debate which I understand is likely to take place on Monday. But, of course, I can assure the Committee that it is with the full agreement of the Government that we accede to the principles laid down at Oxford with regard to the basis of the whole of the Commonwealth Scholarship and Fellowship Plan. I do not think there can be any misunderstanding about our attitude, including the attitude of my noble Friend, to that after the agreement which was reached by the delegations at the Conference with regard to these guiding principles.
I have been asked a number of questions and I will do my best to answer them. The first came from my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Miss Vickers). It is for the Commission to decide the nature of the sub-committees or standing committees, whatever form they may take, that it appoints under the powers given to it in


this Bill. It would be for the Commission to decide whether it required to have a committee dealing with the question of hospitality, but I should have thought that as responsibility for this rests, under our plan, with the British Council, any action which is to be taken to provide for the hospitality and, indeed, the welfare of the students in their spare time should be more appropriately taken by the British Council itself. I should like to have an opportunity of discussing with my hon. Friend and, indeed, with any colleague who may be interested in this subject any ideas with regard to ensuring that in this country nothing is left undone which will make students who come here welcome and happy while they are in the United Kingdom.
I find myself in a little difficulty in following some of the arguments put forward by the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes). He asked my noble Friend not to interfere with the Commission's work. But on another occasion he made it clear that it was his view that my noble Friend should give very exact and detailed instructions to the Commission on how it should conduct its business. I think the principle that we intend to follow is the right one. My noble Friend, in accordance with the powers given to him under this Bill, will select those persons whom he feels have the capacity, qualifications, character and high standards which are necessary for them to perform the task as members of the Commission. Our duty after that is to leave it to them to conduct the tasks which fall to the Commission as seem to them best, although we have in reserve, under the powers given in the Bill to the Secretary of State, the right to give directions to the Commission should the necessity arise. But we do not anticipate for a moment that the number of directions that the Secretary of State will have to give will be numerous or frequent.
I cannot accept the view of the hon. and learned Member with regard to Clause 1 (2). As he knows from his long experience of the law, the definition of a Commonwealth citizen and a British-protected person in accordance with the British Nationality Act, 1948, is quite clear. It does not include a citizen of the Republic of Ireland. It does not

include it in that Act and, therefore, it does not include it in relation to this subsection.
On the other hand, it is recognised by the Government that there may be occasions when persons coming to this country as applicants for scholarships may not be British citizens or British-protected persons, but may, in the view of the sponsoring countries, so to speak, be people likely not only to benefit from the facilities which are available here, but subsequently to make an outstanding contribution to life within the country sponsoring them.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Foreigners?

Mr. Alport: Yes, foreigners or citizens of the Irish Republic. We do not want to exclude them completely. Discretion is given to the Commission and to my noble Friend to extend the facilities of these scholarships to them if, in the view of the Commission and of my noble Friend, it is right that that should be done.
I think the Committee will recognise that as this is a Commonwealth Scholarship and Fellowship Plan, the first priority and, indeed, the greatest benefit of it must be kept for those who are, in the definition of this subsection, "Commonwealth citizens or British protected persons."
The right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) referred to some matters which I think are wider than the Bill, but I should like to say to him with great seriousness that the great value and the novelty of this plan is that it is not a one-way traffic. It is a multi-way traffic, if I may use such an expression, that is, people from the United Kingdom will go to Commonwealth countries and people from one Commonwealth country will go to any number of others. There is a process, therefore, of cross-fertilisation of ideas arising as a result of this Plan.
In those circumstances, I feel that we should not easily consider a proposal which would exclude people from this country going to any Commonwealth country where they will, after all, carry with them our ideas of academic freedom, of how contacts of this sort should be made and of the appropriate contribution of university academic life here. I would, therefore, find it difficult easily


to accept the right hon. Gentleman's proposition. Nevertheless, that is a matter which, as he said quite rightly, may be in order for discussion at a later date. In those circumstances, I hope the Committee will give its approval to this Clause.

Mr. Malcolm MacPherson: Will the Minister of State answer the question with regard to the Commonwealth Plan?

Mr. Alport: I do not think there is any difficulty with regard to the Commonwealth Scholarship and Fellowship Plan. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East answered the question on my behalf. As the Bill says, the Commonwealth Scholarship and Fellowship Plan
means the Plan so named which was put forward by the Commonwealth Education Conference held at Oxford…
That definition is necessary because there is a reference in Clause 1 (1, a) to the Commonwealth Scholarship and Fellowship Plan. Therefore, it is necessary for the purposes of the Bill to make it clear that that reference in Clause 1 (1, a) applies to the whole scheme which was given this title of "Commonwealth Scholarship and Fellowship Plan" at Oxford. I think it is merely included for clarification and has no other significance.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: The Minister cannot slide over this peculiar and muddled draftsmanship so easily. Do these words—
'the Commonwealth Scholarship and Fellowship Plan' means the Plan so named which was put forward by the Commonwealth Education Conference held at Oxford"—
refer to Cmnd. 894 or to Cmnd. 841? We have two separate White Papers. There is the Report of the Commonwealth Education Conference containing general recommendations mentioned in the Long Title of the Bill, and then there is this somewhat odd White Paper entitled Commonwealth Scholarship and Fellowship Plan. If we go through those White Papers, we discover that in Cmnd. 894 there are a number of points that are not included in the recommendations of the Commonwealth Education Conference. So far as I can see, the point made in Cmnd. 894 that
the Commission will be empowered to appoint at its discretion a panel of advisers dealing with relevant fields of learning,

is neither in the Report of the Commonwealth Education Conference, nor is it in the text of the Bill, unless I have overlooked it.
We are in a most peculiar position. I do not know what the position of the Commission will be, but Parliament is being asked to pass legislation with reference to a plan whose textual basis is contained in two separate White Papers. Why the Government did not do as has been suggested by one of my hon. Friends and put the powers of this Commission and the recommendations contained in Cmnd. 894 into a proper Schedule so that we could have debated them properly, I do not know. But what the Minister has said on this point is not good enough.

Mr. Malcolm MacPherson: What would happen if a court case arose in which somebody said "This is in the plan" and somebody on the other side said, "This is not in the plan"? How would the judge decide? Is there any text to which he could refer, or would he generally try to find out what happened at Oxford where some sort of plan was evolved?

Mr. Alport: There is a report of the Oxford Conference which gives the plan in detail. It is not purely a United Kingdom plan. It is a plan which covers the whole of the Commonwealth. The purpose of the Bill is to put into effect our section of this general plan which covers not only the United Kingdom but other Governments as well. In those circumstances, the definition clarifies the reference which was made earlier, so that there could be a reference to the point.

Mr. Thomson: Let us assume for the sake of argument that somebody is nominated by a Commonwealth Government to be a Commonwealth scholar, but that he is not selected by the Commission in this country on the ground that he is over the age of 35. Paragraph 12 of Cmd. 894 says:
Commonwealth Scholarships will normally be open to men and women under 35…Preference will be given to candidates who are between 22 and 28 years of age.
But this was not a specific recommendation of the Commonwealth Education Conference. All that the Conference said was that the question of age limits for Commonwealth scholarships should


be decided between sending and receiving countries. Suppose someone decides to take action against Her Majesty's Government for being debarred illegally. How will the judge deal with the matter when he is presented with the text of the Act of Parliament that we shall have passed? It does not seem to be a satisfactory way of dealing with the matter.

Mr. E. G. Willis: Surely the Minister should not be able to get away with it like this. It is obvious that he has failed to satisfy my hon. Friends on a really important point. The Government are introducing legislation which incorporates a White Paper as part of a statutory enactment.

Mr. Thomson: Two White Papers.

Mr. Willis: Yes, two different White Papers. What are the precedents for this type of legislation? What does a person do if he wishes to know what is the law in relation to Commonwealth scholarships and he consults the Statutes in the Library and finds this sort of thing? I have spent some time with some of my colleagues examining in detail Acts of Parliament, and I have never seen this sort of thing before, where a Measure refers to a White Paper and includes that White Paper as part of the legislation enacted. If the hon. Gentleman does not know the answer, he should say so and promise that he will find it and tell us later. Up to the present he has not given a very good answer.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Malcolm MacPherson: I wish to press the point a little further. The Minister mentioned two White Papers, but singled out one. He said that what matters here is the Report of the Conference in other words, Cmnd. 894 does not matter. How is the judge to know that? The judge will look at the text of the Act, not at the speech of the Minister sponsoring it or any hon. Member speaking in the debate. The judge must interpret the text. How will he know from the text that it is the Report which is referred to and not Cmnd. 894? How are we to know that there is any certainty in the interpretation in this part of the Bill.

Mr. Alport: The answer is perfectly simple. The second White Paper, to

which the hon. Gentleman referred, was provided by the Government for the convenience of the Committee, to assist hon. Members in considering the Bill. The first White Paper is the Report and represents the plan agreed at Oxford, of which specific mention is made in the passage to which the hon. Gentleman referred. There can be no doubt about it. The hon. Gentleman's question to me about a case which might be brought does not arise. If he thinks about it more carefully, I do not think that he will assume that it does.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis), I have read Acts of Parliament for the last forty years and I have never seen in any Act a reference like that at the foot of Clause 1 (1):
In this subsection 'the Commonwealth Scholarship and Fellowship Plan' means the Plan so named which was put forward by the Commonwealth Education Conference held a' Oxford in July, nineteen hundred and fifty-nine.
That is a very unusual, perhaps unique, attempt to make the Report of the Conference part of the Statute, but it is the wrong way to do it. If it is intended to make it part of the Statute, it should be put into a Schedule so that, whenever any contest comes before the courts about the construction or application of the Act, the learned judge will be able to construe it within the four corners of the Act, as he does with every other Act. He cannot do it unless the plan is incorporated in the Act. I do not want to make difficulties over a very good Bill. It is, otherwise, a Bill of good intentions. The proper thing to do is to take back the Bill and to incorporate the plan in a Schedule.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: I am sorry to press this matter at this stage, but it is rather important and we are by no means satisfied. I listened carefully to the Minister's explanation and I accept it so far as it goes. He says that there should be no difficulty because the plan, so named, put forward by the Commonwealth Education Conference is the plan contained in Cmnd. 841.
My difficulty is that in the White Paper—turned out, as the Minister put it, for the convenience of the Committee, but it seems to be rather for the confusion of the Committee—there are


a number of items which appear neither in the Report of the Conference nor in the Bill. Presumably, they are among the things we are supposed to be enacting.
On Second Reading the Under-Secretary of State made a very important point about the panel of advisers which the Commission will appoint to advise it on the selection of candidates and places. The panel of advisers is not among the recommendations of the Commonwealth Conference or in the text of the Bill. I have already referred to age limits. That question was not a recommendation of the Conference, nor is it in the text of the Bill, but it is in the White Paper, which apparently has no sort of standing, except as an explanation of the Bill. Paragraph 7 of the White Paper says:
…the Association of Universities of the British Commonwealth will furnish the secretariat of the Commission.
The Association is mentioned in the Report of the Conference as dealing with the central arrangements between the various Commonwealth countries, but this is a different matter in relation to our own Commission. There is no provision that the British Council will be responsible for paying the cost of passages, fees and allowances. That is in the White Paper, but not in the recommendations of the Commonwealth Conference and not in the Bill.
What will happen if a Commonwealth scholar brings an action alleging that the British Council has not performed its duties, and has not paid proper fees and allowances? His lawyer will look at the Act and find no provision for something which we are assured is intended by the British Government to be carried into effect. That sort of provision should have been in a Schedule so that we could know exactly where we stand.
We are not satisfied. I can understand the Minister's difficulty, but will he not at least say that he will reconsider the points made by a number of my hon. Friends? The Solicitor-General is in the Chamber now. Perhaps he can tell us the precedents for this kind of legislative draftsmanship. If the hon. and learned Gentleman does not feel inclined to take the plunge at the moment, the Minister should at least say that he will

consult the Law Officers and, if it is found to be necessary, will introduce a Schedule when the Bill comes up in another place.

Mr. Alport: Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman and others a little further. Their difficulty arises because they have misunderstood the character of the Oxford Conference. It was a gathering of distinguished delegations from a number of Governments. It reached general decisions about a scheme for scholarships and fellowships for the Commonwealth as a whole. It is in accordance with the spirit of the Commonwealth, and certainly with the spirit of the Oxford Conference, that every detail with regard to that plan should not be decided there. Every detail was not in fact decided there.
The plan which was drawn up was a general plan. As the right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) knows, because he has been Secretary of State for Commonwealth relations, it has been the practice of the Commonwealth in dealing with such a matter to reach general conclusions and then leave it to the individual members to carry out the spirit and the intention of a proposal of this sort in accordance with the differing circumstances in each Commonwealth country.

Mr. Gordon Walker: I agree with what the hon. Gentleman is saying about the spirit of the Commonwealth. We are not writing a Bill in which there is a spirit. We are writing a Bill in which there are letters. Such a spirit cannot be embodied in a Bill. A Government must be quite clear about what they are putting into a Bill. That is the complaint of my right hon. and hon. Friends, and there is much to be said for it.

Mr. Alport: The right hon. Gentleman has not, perhaps, followed the discussion entirely from the beginning. I am trying to explain the basis. It is for each country to include in its own legislation whatever may be most appropriate for its particular circumstances.
The Bill, therefore, provides entirely for our share of the plan. It gives, as I think is the wish of both sides, a great deal of latitude to the Commission. It gives enough powers to the Commission and to my noble Friend to enable


them to carry out their responsibility. I am certain that the Committee would not like to lay down now every intimate detail of the plan. We have indicated in the White Paper some of our intentions. On the advice which we have had from the Interim Commission, we think that they are appropriate to the plan. As far as the Government are concerned and as far as the Commission is concerned, which is more important, I am satisfied that the Bill gives the powers necessary for them to perform the job.
We must leave it, as I hope that the Committee would wish, to the members selected to take up appointments on the Commission to carry out the United Kingdom share of the scheme in accordance with the spirit and general proposals of the plan. I hope that the Committee will feel that there is a proper assurance about Clause 1 and will give it its approval.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: I must press the Minister a little further. I accept what he says, so far as it goes. The Bill implements the recommendations of the Commonwealth Education Conference. It is a legislative expression of the spirit of mutual co-operation within the Commonwealth. The spirit of the Commonwealth cannot be put into a Statute, and no one is suggesting that. It might have been better if some method had been found in the text of the Bill not to make this peculiar reference to this kind of conference, to which it is impossible to give statutory definition. I am not quarelling with that.
The Minister went on to say that it is the duty of Her Majesty's Government to carry out her part of the agreement made at the Commonwealth Education Conference. The hon. Gentleman said that this is done in the Bill, together with the explanation provided in Cmnd. 894. That is what I am quarrelling with. The Minister is attempting to carry out the British Government's part of this agreement in the Bill, accompanied by a White Paper not referred to in the Bill, namely Cmnd. 894. The White Paper seems to contain a number of most important provisions for empowering the Commission to do its job.
The Minister said that he wants the Commission to have a great deal of freedom. Why did he not put what is in

the White Paper into the Bill'? What will happen if the Commission decides that the age limit shall not be 35, but 45? Is that to be a breach of the Statute? Clearly it cannot be, because it is not in the Bill, although it is in the Government's White Paper. What will happen if the Commission decides not to appoint an advisory committee'? Where will the House of Commons stand then? The Under-Secretary was questioned about this on Second Reading. He gave an assurance that there would be an advisory committee. The advisory committee is in the White Paper, but not in the Bill. The Commission need not appoint an advisory committee. It would not be breaking the Statute if it did not.
Suggestions are made in the White Paper about the way in which scholars will be looked after, which is an immensely important part of the working of the scheme. It says that the British Council will be responsible. That is the type of thing which should be in a Schedule. What will happen if the Commission decides that it does not want to use the British Council? This would be within its powers under the Bill, but it is contrary to the proposition put before the Committee by the Government in the White Paper. It is improper that there is not a Schedule enacting some of the specific proposals set out in the Government's White Paper as their intention of how they will work the Act.

Mr. Willis: My hon. Friend raised a very important topic, to which the Minister has not replied. All he said was. "I am satisfied". It is not much of an argument for anyone to come to the Box and to say: "I am satisfied that it is all right". Why is the hon. Gentleman satisfied? It is not customary to legislate in a Bill and refer to a White Paper, the White Paper thereby becoming almost part of the legislation.
We are not questioning or attacking the Bill. We are merely mentioning points which seem to be important. We asked if there were precedents. The hon. Gentleman did not reply. What Act of Parliament refers to a White Paper and says that the purpose of the Act is to implement the White Paper? If that is done, the White Paper should be in the Bill, in the form of a Schedule. All that we are asking is that the hon.


Member should look at this matter again, and, as the question has been raised, speak to his legal advisers to see whether it is in order. I should not have thought that it was beyond the ability of the hon. Gentleman or that it would impair his position if he said, "These matters have been considered. I do not know of any precedents, but I will look at the Bill again, so that if it is wrong or weak it can be rectified".

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Alport: I have already said that, on the best advice I can obtain and to the best of my knowledge and belief, this is not only in order but is the appropriate way of dealing with this problem, but I am quite prepared, in view of the representations made, to reassure myself on the point. If it would help the Committee to proceed with the Bill, I should be glad to do that.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2. —(EXPENSES UNDER SCHOLAR SHIP PLAN.)

Mr. G. M. Thomson: I beg to move, in page 2, line 44, to leave out from "to" to the end of line 45 and to insert:
such number not less than five hundred as the Secretary of State may from time to time decide".
I move the Amendment to give the Under-Secretary of State the chance to live up to the peroration with which he ended his excellent speech on Second Reading. He may have noted that we were castigated in the Observer on Sunday for being a little too complacent about what we were doing and how much we were achieving in the Bill. It seemed to me, on looking at the Under-Secretary's words in the cold clear light of the next morning, that he had gone rather a long way. He said on Second Reading:
The Bill is a great landmark. It represents the determination of a group of…some 660 million people, getting on for one quarter of the human race, to help one another, each according to his capacity, so that the benefits of higher education, of advanced technology and research shall be shared to the advancement and benefit of all."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th November, 1959; Vol. 614, c. 459.]
Certainly this Bill would be a very great landmark if it did all that, but at the

moment all that the Bill does is to make proposals for 500 scholarships for postgraduate students as agreed at the Commonwealth Education Conference. This will be, we trust, 500 places of higher learning for overseas scholars in addition to the 25,000 Commonwealth students of all sorts and levels who are in this country at the moment. An addition of 500 to 25,000 is not a tremendous increase, although it is very valuable and we all welcome it. It is, as the Minister said, only an addition of 500 to 25,000 students out of a population of 660 million. I do not think that there is room for any of us to be at all complacent.
We have tabled the Amendment to try to make sure that the Bill may perhaps one day become a landmark. Otherwise, at the very best, the Bill will not be a landmark but a milestone. I think that Members on both sides of the House expressed the hope on Second Reading that this was merely a first instalment of wider and more fruitful ways of educational cooperation within the Commonwealth. I trust that once various Commonwealth countries and ourselves have the present ration of scholarships in full operation they will come together again at the next Commonwealth Education Conference in India in 1961 and will say, "This is going very well. It is doing good work. Let us increase the number of Commonwealth scholarships we are prepared to offer. Let us double the number between the second and third Commonwealth Education Conferences".
As I understand the position—I am not surprised in the light of the exchanges across the Table—if the next Commonwealth Education Conference decides to double the number of Commonwealth scholarships we shall provide, the Government will need to bring in a new Bill or to amend the present one. This Bill simply and solely implements the recommendation of 500 scholarships agreed at this Conference. There is no provision for the kind of future advance we all so very much desire.
I hope that I carry the Government with me in suggesting that it is very desirable within the text of this Bill that there, in due course, should be provision for Her Majesty's Government to award still more scholarships without cumbersome recourse to further legislation. All Governments, as I understand, like to find


ways of avoiding coming to the House of Commons with legislation. I should have thought that it would be a sensible precaution in this Bill for the Government to take necessary steps to allow this scheme of Commonwealth scholarships to be expanded as the years go by if agreement can be reached with our fellow Commonwealth countries.
I do not suggest that the text of the Amendment will stand examination by expert draftsmen. I understand that there are problems about that, but I hope that the spirit of the Amendment will be accepted by the Government and that they will try to make arrangements so to adjust the Bill in another place that the number of scholarships might be extended as speedily and quickly as they can obtain agreement from the other Commonwealth countries.

Mr. Creech Jones: I should like to support my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson). The Clause as at present drafted appears to be somewhat restrictive. It imposes the duty, I imagine, on the Government of coming to the House to ask for further powers or to introduce further legislation if it is thought desirable that more scholarships should be given. At present, I think that we are doing very much more in this sphere than is generally appreciated, quite apart from what the Government now propose. I should like the Bill to go through in such a way that in future there is no hampering restraint on the Government should they feel that the administration of the Measure has been so successful that further scholarship awards should be made provided our resources are sufficient.
I support the Amendment because we restrict ourselves too much in the Clause. After all, there is a growth of good will and better understanding inside the Commonwealth, and we seek increasing facilities to give expression to that spirit. One of the best ways of doing it is, in my judgment, in accordance with the purpose and intentions of the Brill.
I hope that the Minister will look at the Amendment and say that 250 or 500 places will not be the limit. The necessity for this educational work is so considerable that we hope that in the years ahead there will be increased opportunities for these awards to be

made. We should reach beyond the limit of 500 and work to a higher figure as soon as circumstances permit. I hope that the restrictive nature of the Clause will not stand and that it will be amended in such a way as to give this latitude to the Government in the future.

Mr. Laurence Pavitt: I want to add my voice in support of my hon. Friends. I hope that the Minister will consider the Amendment favourably. It goes beyond the mere question of the numbers concerned, but I think that it reflects the spirit of the debate from the time the Bill was first discussed in the House.
It is a good Bill, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) has said, it represents a milestone rather than the end of the journey. I think that if we can accept the general spirit and the imaginative approach which we had at the start of the debate this afternoon, when we reached back to the best ways of British thought of all kinds in order to give of the richest possible experience from this country, and if we are to engage in the multilateral process as mentioned by the Minister, then the same kind of reaching back into the countries sending people from the Commonwealth, will take place. We want the Bill to be a success. The more successful it is, the greater demand there will be from the Commonwealth for more places for scholars and for more fellows to come to this country.
In the less technically developed countries, what many of us are looking for is that there shall be a chain reaction and that as ideas flow, so they will be communicated to a great extent by those people going back to their own countries in various sectors of their national life. If that is to happen, as the scheme continues there will be a greater demand for these scholarships, particularly from the less technically developed countries.
In India, for example, in the last six years in the sector of the Co-operative societies at village level, six colleges have been instituted by the Reserve Bank of India covering most of the country from Bengal down to Bombay. These colleges in particular need postgraduate people to go back and to refresh and enliven them. This scheme


in India has been going for only a short time and as yet there have not been demands from that source for the kind of education that we can give so well in this country. Inevitably, with this Commonwealth scheme, that will be yet another source of demand for scholarships.
My last point concerns the request properly made by the hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Miss Vickers) for consideration of the womenfolk to come to take higher education in this country. In the less-developed countries, in spite of the high rate of development in towns like Karachi, in places such as those of which the hon. Lady has great experience in Malaya the emergence of the female into the economic and social life of the country has only just started. As more and more development, both technological and otherwise, occurs in those countries they will become yet a further source of demand.
The Amendment, therefore, is eminently correct. It conveys the general impression of the Committee, on both sides, that this rather broad approach is the gateway to something greater than merely the immediate provision of scholarships up to the number of 500. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will accept the Amendment.

The Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. Richard Thompson): The object of the Amendment is one which I readily appreciate and understand. Hon. Members, convinced that this is a good scheme, want to feel that it is not unreasonably limited and that if it is a success we can go on and make it still better without following the process of coming back to the House of Commons for further legislation. That is a generous sentiment and one which, I hope, the success of the scheme, in due course, will show to be well founded.
The Amendment covers a quite narrow point. The wording of the Clause authorises my noble Friend to award up to 500 scholarships. The form of words chosen by the hon Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) and his hon. Friends slightly alters that to "not less than five hundred" scholarships, the implication clearly being that the number

could be more. We should not belittle the figure of 500. I noted what the hon. Member said about the article in the Observer, which quoted a figure of 27,000 university students in this country and reflected that 500 did not seem to be a very great increase. It is, however, bigger than we think, because the figure of 27,000 referred largely to undergraduates and included, probably, people on apprenticeship courses and things of that kind. We know, however, that the majority of people coming here under this scholarship scheme will be of post-graduate status. If we consider the number of university students of postgraduate status in this country, an increase of 500 is quite substantial.
6.45 p.m.
With our Commonwealth partners, we are committed to a figure of 500 scholarships. Certainly, we intend to go up to that level. At this stage, however, I do not think that it would be right to go beyond that figure, which we have agreed in company with our partners in the Commonwealth, until we have given the scheme a reasonable chance to work out. Of course, the number of scholarships awarded within the limits of the scheme depends upon the number of people coming forward from the Commonwealth countries, but provided that sufficient applicants come forward —I see no reason to doubt that they will—we shall certainly not fall below the limit that we have set ourselves as a beginning.
I repeat to the hon. Member for Dundee, East what I said on Second Reading. We regard the scheme as only a beginning. It should be given a chance to get going, to implement the arrangements that we arrived at with our partners in Montreal and, later, at Oxford. We could not commit ourselves now to further unspecified expenditure in this way and we have also to consider the capacity of our universities to take in such additional students as we might like to take.
For all these reasons, I counsel the Committee to accept these limits which we have set ourselves, which are in agreement with our partners and which represents a great advance, and to reflect that opportunity for reviewing the progress which we expect to make will arise at the second Education Conference in


India in 1961. When we have had a chance to consider that, if the omens are good—as, I think, probably they will be —we shall be quite ready to come to the House with, perhaps, further proposals. I regard that as the proper method and that we should act now in conformity with the agreement arrived at with our partners. If we give the present arrangements a chance to work, we can see what next to do when we review the position.
With that assurance—that we regard the Bill as a beginning and that we want the scheme to prosper and grow—I hope that the hon. Member will see fit to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. Marquand: We must welcome the assurance given by the Under-Secretary that the Bill is intended to be only a beginning and that the Government have it clearly in mind to go much further at a later stage. It is, however, extraordinary how, this afternoon, we on this side have moved two Amendments which would liberate the Government and give them greater discretion in the choice of their Commission—they would have given the Government wider powers to grant more scholarships—but they have refused them both. The Minister of State and the Under-Secretary delight in hugging their chains which we were willing to strike off them. I am surprised.
I might have been inclined to press the matter further were it not that the discussion on Clause 1 revealed that there were such doubtful features in the Bill that it might be better to let it stand as it is and, when the time comes to expand the scheme, to have another Bill which is a little more specific and more carefully drafted. On the whole, therefore, I advise my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: In view of the assurances from the Under-Secretary of State, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, without Amendment; read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — JUDICIAL PENSIONS [MONEY]

Resolution reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the law with respect to the pensions and other benefits attaching to certain high judicial offices, it is expedient to authorise the charge on and payment out of the Consolidated Fund of any increase in the sums payable out of that Fund which is attributable to provisions of the said Act applying to all or any of the following offices, that is to say Lord Chancellor, Lord of Appeal in Ordinary, Judge of the High Court of Justice or Court of Appeal, Judge of the Court of Session, and Judge of the High Court of Justice or Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland, being provisions—
(a) amending the law with respect to the pensions or other benefits which may be granted to or in respect of persons retiring or dying in office (including persons who may have retired or died between the tenth day of November, nineteen hundred and fifty-nine, and the commencement of the said Act);
(b) regulating the age of retirement from office;
(c) increasing pensions payable to persons who retired before the ninth day of July, nineteen hundred and fifty-nine.

Resolution agreed to.

Orders of the Day — JUDICIAL PENSIONS BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Sir GORDON TOUCHE in the Chair.]

Clause 1. —(RATE OF PENSION OF HOLDERS OF CERTAIN HIGH JUDICIAL OFFICES.)

6.46 p.m.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Jocelyn Simon): I beg to move, in page 1, line 7, after "Act" to insert:
when qualified for such a pension.

The Chairman: I understand that it would be for the convenience of the Committee to discuss, at the same time, the next two Amendments in the name of the Attorney-General, in Clause 3, page 2, line 9, leave out "to him," and page 2, line 10, leave out from "enactment" to "be" in line 11 and insert:
to any such person who retires when qualified for such a pension shall".

The Solicitor-General: Yes, Sir Gordon. These are drafting Amendments.
It has been suggested by people who have looked at the Bill that it might be construed as meaning that a judge in


office at the time when the Bill becomes law could retire and claim a pension equal to one-half of his salary, even though he had not completed fifteen years in office or, alternatively, had not retired suffering from a permanent infirmity.
The Amendment is designed to make it quite clear that the pensions are payable to serving judges only after fifteen years' service, or on retirement through permanent infirmity, as at present.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Mr. E. G. Willis: On Second Reading, we were treated in a rather cavalier fashion by the Secretary of State for Scotland. I had hoped that on this occasion we might be able to elicit some information about the position in Scotland, but so far, I see, we do not have any Scottish Ministers on the Government Front Bench again.
On Second Reading, the Secretary of State intervened for exactly three minutes, including interruptions. He failed to give us a lot of information that was given by the Attorney-General in respect of the rates of pension to the holders of office mentioned in the First Schedule. My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) spoke after the Secretary of State and put a number of questions to him. The Solicitor-General rightly refused to attempt to reply to Scottish matters.
I am in somewhat of a difficulty, Sir Gordon, because I want to raise Scottish questions on the Clause. I know that the Solicitor-General will not reply to questions on Scottish matters on the Clause, because I do not think he has the relevant information. I am wondering, therefore, what I can do about this. I do not know whether it would be in order for me to move to report Progress until we can get the appropriate Ministers here, but this is certainly an impossible position in which to place Scottish Members. We cannot get any information at all about the provisions of the Clause as they operate in Scotland.
7.0 p.m.
I see a figure rushing along the corridor and now entering the Chamber

from behind the Chair, so perhaps I may make some observations to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General for Scotland, who has, by this time, arrived. For the right hon. and learned Gentleman's information, I was remarking that the Scottish Office treated the House in rather cavalier fashion on Second Reading. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State made an intervention for three minutes, including interruptions, and then departed. No answers were given to questions which were raised later. I can understand that the Secretary of State is a busy man, but where were the Law Officers? Where was the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself? Where was the Lord Advocate? We could surely have had someone present on Second Reading to tell us about Clause 1.
The Attorney-General, speaking about England, gave many figures to show how the Bill would affect the pensions of judges. I want the Solicitor-General to tell us how the Bill would affect the pensions of judges in Scotland. I gather that judges in Scotland receive smaller salaries than do judges in England. I am bound to say that I do not understand why. A judge in Scotland does work which is just as important as the work of a judge in England. This is quite unfair to Scotland and quite unfair to the legal profession in Scotland. I do not very often defend the legal profession—I spend most of my time attacking it—but, at least, this does not seem to be right.
The pensions of judges in Scotland will be smaller. As there will be this difference, may we now be told what the effect of the Bill will be upon the pensions of the Lord Justice General, the Lord Justice Clerk, and the Senators of the College of Justice in Scotland? To what extent does the Bill mean an increase in pension? How much of the estimated increase per year, namely, £55,000, for these pensions is in respect of pensions for judges in Scotland? I should be very grateful if the Solicitor-General for Scotland will tell us.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland (Mr. William Grant): The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) asked two questions. First, he asked, why are judges in Scotland paid a smaller salary?

Mr. Willis: I had a point before that. I asked why we were not given any information during the Second Reading debate, and I want to know where the members of the Scottish Office were after the Secretary of State went?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: As the hon. Gentleman realises, I am not a member of the Scottish Office, nor am I responsible for the absence of any member of the Scottish Office. I will, however, remind the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was here during a considerable part of the debate, and he did intervene in order to deal with particularly Scottish matters.
The pensions in Scotland are based on the salary, as they are in England, and the pensions will be the same fraction of the salary. Under this Bill, judges who retire in future will receive a pension based on one-half of their salaries. This means, if the hon. Gentleman would like a figure—

Mr. Willis: That is what I do want, yes.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The figures of salary in Scotland are as follows: the Lord Justice General has a salary of £8,000. The Lord Justice Clerk has a salary—I am speaking from memory, but I think I am right—of £7,800. The other judges each receive a salary of £6,600. If under the Bill, after doing the requisite amount of service and so on, they qualify for a full pension, they will receive half those amounts in pension when they retire. There will still be the widows' rights and the lump sum which, I think, were introduced in 1954.

Mr. William Ross: 1950.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: 1950—I am sorry. They were introduced in 1950, and the increase in salary of £3,000 a year was made in 1954, but that increase was not counted for pension rights.
Under the Bill, the judges will receive on retirement, after fulfilling the conditions for a full pension, a pension of one-half of their last annual salary.

Mr. Willis: We read all that in the Bill. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has not told us very much. I will

put the question more specifically. What is the present pension of these judicial officers and what will the pension be under the Bill?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I can give the hon. Gentleman those figures. Starting with the Lord President, the Lord Justice General, his present pension—I am speaking about the full pension—is £2,812. Under the Bill, it will be £4,000. For the Lord Justice Clerk, under the rule as it now stands, there would be a pension of £2,700, and under the Bill it will be £3,900. Under the present law, the other judges have a pension of £2,025, and under the Bill they will receive a pension of £3,300. Those figures, of course, are exclusive of widows' rights.

Mr. Ross: I am very grateful indeed for this belated information about the position in Scotland. It would have been very much better had we had it at the right time; it might have enabled us to make more certain and considered comments about the matter at that stage. There is a further point about which we are entitled to know now. This Bill applies to England and to Scotland. The Solicitor-General for Scotland has made no effort to tell us why this action has been taken. What is the justification for it? When we were treated to the joyful news that an increase was to be given to the judges in 1954—

Mr. Willis: Great celebrations in Edinburgh.

Mr. Ross: —we were specifically told that that would not affect the pension. Therefore, in this discussion on the Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill", I want to know exactly why what people took great care not to do in 1954 must be done in 1959. That is my first question.
The second question is how this Bill affects the options given by the 1950 Act? Does it mean that the calculations to be made will now be made in relation to this Bill? We were told that all consideration of the 1954 arrangement was to be wiped out; we were making a new departure, with fixed sums to follow.
In Scotland, the Lord Justice General will have an increase in pension of £1,188. For the Lord Justice Clerk it will be £1,200. I do not know whether there


will be a clash here because one has a few more pounds than the other, especially considering that one of them is presently receiving a higher salary. For the other judges of the Court of Session the increase will be £1,275. I think my figures are right. As we go down the scale, so the increase in pension is greater.
How was this basis of pension scale worked out? Apart from the quite legitimate complaint of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) about the level of salaries in Scotland for judges vis-à-vis their English counterparts, may we be told how the Bill will work out for Scottish judges compared with the English judicial hierarchy?
Subsection (3) provided:
Where the period of the relevant service of any such person is less than fifteen years, the annual amount of the pension shall be as follows, that is to say—
(a) if that period does not exceed five years, one-quarter of his last annual salary".
Why was it worked out on the basis of five years? There must have been some thought behind it. Why is it that after five years the judges receive one-quarter of their annual salary, but that in order to have full pension they have to continue for fifteen years or more? I hope the Solicitor-General can give us the answer to these rather small points.

The Solicitor-General: I think that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) did me less than justice when he suggested that I had not on Second Reading explained why the Bill was being brought in.

Mr. Willis: I did not say that.

The Solicitor-General: I gave several reasons—I think two are particularly relevant—why something which was not thought expedient in 1954 should now be considered expedient and, indeed, necessary.
The first reason is that in 1954 the economic state of the country was by no means as strong as it is today. There was an urgent case for an increase in judicial salaries, and this, I think, was accepted by the whole House. It was felt that an increase in pensions could, at any rate, wait.
Several things have happened since which make it quite urgent to deal also

with pensions. With very great respect to the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), I did mention these points on Second Reading. I said that the pensions of the higher judiciary ought to bear a reasonable relationship to those awarded to the higher servants of the executive branch of Government. Latterly, particularly recently, the pensions awarded to the higher civil servants, based on the Coleraine salary increases, have gone up incommensurately, and, indeed, they are strikingly ahead of judicial pensions. That seems to me to be one major change in circumstance related to the general balance of the constitution and particularly the balance which one wishes to get between these two great branches of the public service.

Mr. Ross: Before the hon. and learned Gentleman leaves that, will he relate it to the actual service of 15 years?

The Solicitor-General: Actual service? Yes, what I was pointing out was that the judicial service must be seen in relation to the recruiting at the very beginning of the legal career as well as at the beginning of the judicial service.
The second point, perhaps even more cogent, is that it is necessary to preserve within the judicial service itself reasonable differentials so that those of higher rank and higher responsibility should attract a larger pension than those of lower rank and lower responsibility. Again owing to the fact that the salaries, and therefore the pensions, of the lower judiciary are reviewed at the time when there is a rise in the salaries of the higher civil servants there has been an increase in the salaries and therefore in the pensions of the lower judiciary which has resulted in some striking anomalies whereby members of the junior judiciary have got larger pensions than those in the higher judiciary. These are, of course, particularly striking in Scotland, as my right hon. and learned Friend pointed out on Second Reading. So there seem to me to be three reasons why this Bill and this Clause are so necessary today.
The hon. Gentleman asked me certain other specific questions. The first was how the provisions of this Clause affect the options under the 1950 Act. The answer is, not at all; that once an option has been taken one way or the other it cannot be reopened; that anybody who


opted out of the provisions of the 1950 Act cannot now opt to have the ancillary benefits. The option was taken once and for all.
The second specific question the hon. Gentleman asked me was how these increases in pensions are worked out. The answer is that, with the exception of the pension of the President of the Scottish Land Court, whom we shall be discussing on a later Amendment, the pension is half the retiring salary after 15 years' service, with modifications, as hon. Gentlemen will appreciate, which permit of retirement after 10 years' service; and it is on that basis we get the increase to which the hon. Gentleman drew attention.
The right hon. Gentleman asked, thirdly, how the increases in the pensions of the Scottish judges are related to the pensions of the English judges. I imagine that he wanted specific figures, because, of course, in each case the pension is half the retiring salary after 15 years. If I may take a puisne judge of the High Court in England, he has had since 1954 a salary of £8,000 a year, and he has at the moment a pension, assuming that he opted for the ancillary benefits, of £2,625. That is increased to a pension of £4,000 That compares with the figures which my right hon. and learned Friend gave to the hon. Gentleman relating to a judge of the Court of Session, where the respective figures are a salary of £6,600 and at present a pension of £2,025, which will be increased to a pension of £3,300.
7.15 p.m.
The final question which the hon. Gentleman asked me was on subsection (3), which sets out the way the graduated system works:
Where the period of the relevant service of any such person is less than fifteen years, the annual amount of the pension shall be as follows—
First, the lowest figure is one-quarter of the last annual salary, and it then goes up by one-fortieth per year till it comes to half the annual salary. The figure of one-quarter was arrived at because it was felt that, in the case of a judge of the High Court retiring in a period under five years owing to infirmity, which is the circumstance this subsection envisages, it would be wrong to cast him off, in effect, with a pension of less than one-

quarter of his last annual salary—in the case of an English High Court judge, £2,000 a year. It was felt that to treat high officers of our judiciary who were stricken and forced to retire in these circumstances through no fault of their own less generously than that would seem to show we put altogether too low a value on our judiciary generally.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2. —(RETIRING AGE.)

Mr. Willis: I beg to move, in page 1, line 22, to leave out "seventy-five" and to insert "seventy-two".

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. W. R. Williams): I think that it would be for the convenience of the Committee if we were to take with this Amendment the hon. Member's Amendment in Clause 3, page 2, line 13, to leave out "seventy-five" and to insert "seventy-two".

Mr. Willis: I move this Amendment because I feel it would be in the public interest if the age at which judges retire were reduced below the age mentioned in the Clause, which is the age of 75. I am fortified in my belief by the fact that we have had two Commissions which recommended retiral at the age of 72, the St. Aldwyn Commission of 1913 and the Peel Commission of 1936. I am also fortified in my belief by virtue of the fact that, as I understand, in England county court judges have to retire at the age of 72.
This retiral age of 72 was laid down in the County Courts Act, 1934, and it was repeated as recently as this year. After twenty-five years it is still considered to be perfectly reasonable for a county court judge to retire at the age of 72. I know, of course, that there is a provision for the possibility of extension, but, nevertheless, that is the figure laid down.
If I understood correctly what the Attorney-General said on Second Reading, apparently the only body which wants the age of 75 and thinks it is a good one is the Bar Council. Of course, one can quite understand that. I would not have thought that was a very great recommendation for the age of 75. I am bound to say that, as distinct from


the English Bar Council, people in the legal profession in Scotland have written to me against the proposal that 75 should be the age.
What are the arguments about this age of a judge? There is the argument that the job which the judge performs is a very important one. I think that the judicial and the legal profession have managed to create an enormous mystique about this. They talk as though a judge were some sort of tribal god to whom we all pay homage and whom we do not criticise to any great extent and whose wisdom and benevolence we accept as a matter of course. I, of course, do not agree with that. I think a judge is a man doing a job, just the same as any other man is doing a job. He is trained to do that job in the same way as many other people have been trained to do their jobs.
Nevertheless, we have to accept the fact that a judge is responsible in a great measure for decisions which might affect the liberty and the lives of other people, and which might affect their happiness for many years afterwards. Therefore, it is a very responsible job. If that is true, and I think it is, the people who appear before a judge have the right to expect that the judge should at least be in the full possession of all his faculties if he is the guiding figure in determining or deciding these very important questions which affect the lives of ordinary people.
I have never been able to understand why it is always accepted that, if one is a judge, one fails to suffer from the ordinary human ailments of everybody else, but seems to be able to retain one's faculties to almost any age. That is what we have accepted in the past, but everyone knows judges who ought to have retired long before they did. I am sure that the learned Solicitor-General and the legal hon. Gentlemen behind him will agree with that. I do not know if they would agree openly, but at least, they would in private conversation. I happen to live pretty near some of the judges, so I also speak with some experience of watching them.
The fact is that, like other people at a certain age, their mental powers begin to fail. They might face the loss of their hearing. It is very important to a

judge if he cannot hear the evidence that is laid before him. They also lose their eyesight, and some of them become unable even to keep awake during the proceedings. I know that hon. Members of the House do, too, and I am not blaming the judges. Hon. Members find a similar difficulty in keeping awake in this Chamber, but when a judge is unable to keep awake during the proceedings that does not convince the litigants, or whoever happens to be the person whose case is being decided, that it is a good thing.
Then, there is the fact which is often argued—there may be some argument about it, and I myself have often heard it argued—that a judge ought at least to be in reasonably close contact with the community in which he lives and with the climate of opinion in it. I could quote cases in which I think this ought to have happened in Scotland, and the older one gets the less that applies. The more one's faculties fail, the less it applies.
When we fixed the age of retiral for judges at 75, we were creating a privileged class. I know of no other profession in which men holding very responsible positions are allowed to hold them until the age of 75. Why, then, do we create a privileged class in the case of judges? I suggest that, in the main it is due to this mystique that has grown up, which has been created by the legal profession itself for reasons which I can quite well understand. I think we accepted it in the case of the legal profession only because of this mystique.
There may be something in the arguments that are advanced for having the age which is commonly accepted as a suitable one for retirement, namely, 65. I have heard it suggested, and I think that there is a very great deal of truth behind it, that the most suitable age of retirement for a judge would be 68. Some people say 70, but others believe that the worst of all possible ages is 75. Therefore, we suggest in this Amendment, fortified by a great deal of very eminent support, the age of 72.
What are the arguments against this reduction of the age from 75 to 72? The only one that I have ever heard advanced is that we may suffer as a result and lose the knowledge, experience and the ripe judgment of these fine old gentlemen. I


do not say that in any disparaging way, but, naturally, I put it in a layman's language. That argument, however, assumes that they all possess these characteristics. It assumes that every judge is wise, full of knowledge and capable of very ripe decisions, but one knows, as every lawyer knows, that there are bad judges and good judges. This argument means that we have to accept the bad judges as well as the good ones, and, therefore, I do not accept it. If there is anything in it, it is equally true of several other professions. It is equally true of university professors or anybody else whom we lose as the result of retirement, and one could go right through the whole range of the professions.
The Peel Commission, reporting on this matter, said in paragraph 281:
In our opinion the limit of 72 is sufficiently high to meet all the reasonable demands of those who stress the paramount importance of experience on the Bench:
That was the conclusion of the Peel Commission, and I think that a great many people would agree with it. On Second Reading, what was the right hon. and learned Attorney-General's argument on this question of age? I have sought for it in HANSARD for 24th November, but all that the right hon. and learned Gentleman said, after telling us who would and who would not support it, was this:
We have considered this question carefully and have reached the conclusion that there should be no difference between the retiring age of those to whom the Bill applies. We think that that age should be 75. We recognise that individual people vary so much that, whatever the statutory retiring age, it will not he right for everyone.
That is what I have been arguing. The Attorney-General went on:
We feel that in these days a retiring age of 75 is low enough to prevent judges continuing after their mental and physical faculties have deteriorated and high enough to ensure that the bench is not deprived of too much knowledge, experience and ripe judgment."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th November, 1959; Vol. 614, c. 250.]
That is not an argument. I suggest that if the Attorney-General had substituted 72 for 75, that statement would have been equally true. He could have made exactly the same statement. He could have said that the Government felt that a retiring age of 72 was late enough, and it would not have made one fraction of difference to his argument. We have

been given no good reason why the age should be 75.
The Solicitor-General, who is now dealing with this Bill, also had a few words to say. He said:
At the present time the Lord Chancellor finds it very difficult to appoint a man over a certain age to the Bench because he is faced with the position that either that man will not be able to earn his full pension, or he may have to go on on the Bench to a fairly advanced age to earn it.
Under the new system of a graduated pension with a retirement age, anybody of the age of, say, 60 or 65, will be able to accept a judgeship knowing that he cannot earn his full pension if he is appointed at 65, but knowing exactly where he stands. That new source of recruitment to the Bench will be available to Lord Chancellors."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th November, 1959; Vol. 614, c. 308.]
7.30 p.m.
These were the only two arguments used about the retiring age by the Government on Second Reading, and I put it to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that they apply equally to the age of 72 and to the age of 75. Apart from those statements, no reason has been given why this age has been selected as the age for retirement. If it were reduced to 72, it would give the public much greater confidence than some of them have at present in some of the judges. It has always been said that justice must appear to be done as well as be done. Many people have seen judges sometimes unable to hear and sometimes falling asleep on the bench. They have not a great deal of trust in persons whose faculties are failing. It might be true that some people's faculties are very good at 75, but it is equally true that some people's faculties are poor before they reach the age of 70, and there is nothing to compel them to retire, if they are judges.
Under the provisions of the Bill a judge can retire in the knowledge that he will receive a pension in accordance with the years he has served, but we all know the man who denies that he cannot hear but to whom we have to shout, and we all know the man who takes a pride in the fact that his memory is not failing when, in fact, it is. Many men refuse to recognise that their faculties are deteriorating. That is a common experience in life. Such men can remain on the bench until they are 75. In the face of experience and of the


recommendations which have been made, I suggest that 72 is a much better retirement age than 75.
We sometimes hear it said that we are all living longer. What is happening is not so much that people are living much longer but that a great many more people are living to old age. There were people in the last century who lived to great ages and retained their faculties until they were well advanced in years. We know of people who did that in the 18th century, too. I therefore do not think that that is a very good argument.
I appeal to the right hon. and learned Gentleman to give this matter very serious thought. He must remember that we are serving not just the judges but the people of this country and that we want the best service available. This is a modest Amendment. We do not propose the age of 65, which is the retirement age which applies to most people. We are prepared to give the judges a year or two as a concession to the argument that it might be a good thing to retain some of their knowledge on the bench, but surely the Government must be prepared to make a concession to the people of this country and to dispel some of the fears that many people have today. I therefore trust that the Government will consider the Amendment favourably.

The Solicitor-General: I think that the Committee agrees that the Amendment has been moved forcibly and entertainingly by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis), although I was alarmed at some of the pictures of senility which he drew. He is entitled to claim, as he did, that he has the authority of two Royal Commissions to support him in his proposition, although lit is right to point out that the St. Aldwyn Commission recommended retirement at 72, but with extensibility to the age of 75.
I do not think that anyone, either on Second Reading or in this debate, has suggested that, on balance, it is desirable that there should be the power to extend the service of the High Court judge. I see that the hon. Member for Edinburgh. East assents. Indeed, the right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) gave convincing reasons on Second Reading against it.
We are, therefore, left in the position that we have to fix an absolute age, incapable of extension. The hon. Member pointed out that county court judges have to retire at 72, although, as he pointed out, there is the possibility of extension to 75. The Act this year whereby that was continued was a consolidation Act. The provision for retirement at 72, and also, I think, the provision for extension to 75, date from 1888. Since then, and, indeed, since the St. Aldwyn Commission, the expectation of life has increased. I do not put great weight on this point.

Mr. Willis: The increase in the expectation of life is very small.

The Solicitor-General: I am not a statistician, and I find it difficult to know which is the right figure to take; but I was told that at 65 a man's expectation of life has increased by one year since 1910–12, and, as one considers lower ages, the increase in expectation is more striking.
A far more cogent reason is that, having decided against an age capable of extension, we must fix an age which will not result in a waste of judicial manpower. The judiciary differs in certain respects from a career such as the Civil Service and other careers to which the hon. Member drew attention. There is not the same strain as there is on a high civil servant. On the other hand, I think that in the judiciary those qualities to which my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General referred—knowledge, experience and ripe judgment—are particularly important.
Learning and judicial experience continue during the time on the bench, and I can think of some great judges who continued to give wonderful judicial service even past the age of 80. There was a great Scottish judge—the hon. Member knows the judge I mean—who was sitting in the House of Lords until well into his eighties and making excellent contributions to the law.
We have to fix an age which will not result in the premature retirement of good judges, and it is a matter of judgment what that age should be. On the one hand, county court judges may have their service extended to 75. The St. Aldwyn Commission recommended a power to extend to 75. It is right to


answer the hon. Member in this way. He said, in effect, that by reducing the age to 72 we should get rid of many of the less good judges. On the other hand, if we believe, as I think the people of the country feel, that our judicial service is very well manned, we should be getting rid of more of the good judges than of the less good judges.
The hon. Member drew attention to what I said about the late entrants and said that, of course, the argument is good even if the age of 72 is substituted. That is absolutely fair and right. There is a strong argument still for the graduated system, even if we have a retiring age of 72; but it is a stronger argument if the age is 75, because anybody who is appointed at 65 can look forward to ten years' pensionable service on the judicial bench instead of only seven years.
For all these reasons, and for the reasons which the right hon. and learned Member for Newport gave on Second Reading, we would be well advised to put the age sufficiently high to ensure that we do not waste our judicial manpower, with all its ripe experience, knowledge and powers of judgment, which, in these days, do not start to deteriorate in general until people are well on in the seventies. Indeed, in many cases they continue unimpaired until long after that. For all these reasons, I would advise the Committee not to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Willis: The Solicitor-General has been very reasonable and courteous, as he usually is, in his reply, but he has not convinced me that 75 is the right age. I did not accept a number of his arguments. He did not say why 75 was more suitable than 72. Most of the arguments which he adduced in favour of 75 apply to almost every profession. It would be a good thing in almost every profession to keep the experience, the "know-how," the judgment, the ability to make decisions after the age at which people retire, but we do not do that because we think on the whole that it is better that a person should retire at 65 or 70 or whatever the age might be.
It seems to me that precisely the same arguments apply to judges. I fail completely to understand in what way a judge is different from any other person. I started by saying that in my view he is a man doing a job which his training

and experience fit him to do. What makes him the rare bird who ought to be employed until he is 75? The position now, of course, is absolutely absurd. What makes a judge an exception in the whole of our society? We have not had any arguments along these lines at all.
The logic of the proposal in the Bill is that we should be raising the retiring age for all sorts of other people so that we should not lose their skill and experience. We are desperately short of skill and experience in a vast number of other professions, but it is mot thought advisable to raise the retiring age. What gives the judge this extra ability so that his faculties are good much longer than anybody else's? The legal profession is the most powerful closed shop in the country. We talk about the nonsense which the City of London creates round finance, but what about the nonsense the lawyers have created round their profession?
I find that those who are in the law are admirable on the whole, but I do not find that their faculties last any longer than anybody else's. In fact, some of their faculties are impaired more quickly because of some of the habits which are associated with the legal profession. Are there not competent lawyers and Queen's Counsel who are waiting to get on the bench? The Solicitor-General for Scotland comes to the House of Commons to get on the bench. I do not blame him. It is the recognised ladder of promotion in the legal profession in Scotland. We see Solicitors-General for Scotland and Lord Advocates coming in succession to the House and I have not noticed that they have been any more fitted than anybody else to carry on their work until they are 75.
7.45 p.m.
A few years' experience of the Scottish Grand Committee would probably lead to quite a contrary view to the one expressed by the Solicitor-General. In Parliament House, in Edinburgh, there must be scores of Queen's Counsel waiting to get into Parliament so that they migh get on to the bench. That is the only reason why they come to Parliament. That is the only reason why a lawyer in Scotland comes to the House of Commons. I am sure that the Solicitor-General for Scotland could inform the Solicitor-General that there are quite a number of people in Scotland who are


anxious to step up this ladder of promotion. I cannot see why they should not be given the opportunity if they have the capacity.
Why should they be kept out of these jobs until they are 65 and even older? Under the Bill they can be appointed judges at 70 and then retire at 75 on a quarter of the salary, which means, for an English judge, £2,000, and that is not bad. What is the justification for this proposal? I am certain that it is not in the best interest of the judiciary and I am sure that most people would be quite content to see the age fixed at 72 instead of 75.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: I wonder whether the Committee would allow me to say a few words about the Amendment. I have listened with great attention to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) and to the Solicitor-General. My hon. Friend will not expect me to comment—in fact, I am not in a position to comment—on the ladder of promotion to high judicial office in Scotland, but I have had some experience of the functioning of the judiciary in England.
The first observation that should be made is that in so far as my hon. Friend is arguing that there should be some lower retiring age for judges than is fixed in the Bill, I think he should appreciate that the Bill, for the first time, fixes a retiring age at all. Therefore, to that extent the law is being modified in the direction in which he would wish it to be. The only issue on the Amendment is whether it would be more appropriate that the retiring age should be fixed at 72 instead of 75. I agree with what was said by almost every hon. Member on Second Reading—that it would be very undesirable to fix an age, whether 70 or 72 or some other period of years, and then permit a further extended period.

Mr. Willis: I agree.

Mr. Fletcher: That would be thoroughly undesirable. We all agree on that.
Therefore, the only question is whether 72 or 75 is the most appropriate age limit to fix for the compulsory retirement of High Court judges. I agree with the views expressed by the Solicitor-General. I have no personal interest in this and

many other members of the legal profession have no interest in it. I prefer to look at the matter from the point of view of the public interest, which, I am sure, is the way in which hon. Members should look at it.
My experience of High Court judges, judges of the High Court of Appeal and in the House of Lords, is that looking back over the last twenty-five or thirty years the country would have lost a great deal if there had been in force in the last generation a retiring age of 72 for judges. The public interest requires that we should make the best possible use of judicial skill and ability. I believe that most people with experience of practising in the High Court will agree that it has been, as a matter of experience and judgment and not as a matter of theory, the exception rather than the rule to find that a High Court judge over the age of 72 has passed beyond the limit at which he can fulfil his judicial functions, although, of course, there have been cases where, exceptions having arisen, judges have retired below that age.
I hope that my hon. Friend will take it that, in so far as my experience goes, the Committee would be right in adhering to the limit of 75 years suggested in the Bill.

Amendment negatived.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3.—(OPTION FOR EXISTING JUDGES.)

Mr. Ross: I beg to move, in page 2, line 8, to leave out from "him" to the end of line 11.
There were some questions asked about this matter during the Second Reading debate and it was then that the Solicitor-General fell from grace. I wonder whether, in a mood of penance, he read that speech? The hon. and learned Gentleman tried to explain what was meant by the words
and in default of such an election".
I have always looked upon the Solicitor-General as the perfect model of a Minister but I am not so sure after what happened that night. I can assure the hon. and learned Gentleman, as I am sure he realises, that he got into such a muddle then that he could not get out of it. It is true that his reputation has recovered a little today, but it seemed


after that performance to have been built on good Departmental briefs rather than on his own ability to put a case across. The hon. and learned Gentleman is usually lucid as well as being courteous. It is true that he did not lose his courtesy the other night; in fact, he almost reached the point when we might co-opt him on to the Scottish Grand Committee.
This Amendment has been put down to give the Solicitor-General another chance to explain what is meant by the second part of Clause 3 (1). I notice that he has two Amendments down to it, so he probably realises that the subsection requires a certain amount of clarification. The subsection begins:
The foregoing provisions of this Act shall not apply to any person who holds an office listed in the First Schedule …
To the layman the words "The foregoing provisions" would appear to mean Clauses 1 and 2. Clause 1 raises the pension to half the salary. Clause 2 deals with the compulsory retiring age, which is 75. So, if a person elects not to have his pension calculated in relation to these things, one would have thought that these things would not apply to him that is to say, Clause 1 as well as Clause 2. The Committee will remember that the Bill applies to judges holding office at present and they are given this option. If I am right, such a judge can exercise his option and say, "I do not want Clauses 1 or 2 to apply to me". But the subsection continues:
… and in default of such an election the annual amount of the pension which may be granted to him … shall in any case be one-half of his last annual salary.
If that is true, does it not make nonsense of the first words? Does it really mean Clauses 1 and 2 or does it mean subsections (1) and (2) of Clause 2? I hope we shall get a satisfactory explanation from the Solicitor-General tonight. I am sure his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Hobson), who was worried over this point, was not satisfied by the explanation given last week. Certainly I was not satisfied, so here is the Solicitor-General's chance to recover his reputation in the eyes of the Scots. The Scots are good judges of lawyers. Hitherto, we have held the hon. and learned Gentleman in high repute. Here is his

chance to recover his reputation by convincing us not only of the clarity, but of the justice of this provision.

The Solicitor-General: I have an uneasy feeling that the hon. Gentleman's strictures are justified. Last week, I thought that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warwick and Learning-ton (Mr. Hobson) was advancing against this Clause the objection which I indicated when I moved the first of a series of Amendments this evening. It was that point, as I am sure the Committee realises, that I was answering then. Having read the OFFICIAL REPORT, I appreciate that the point my hon. and learned Friend was then making was the one made by this Amendment, and I owe an apology to the Committee for that mistake.
I need not clarify the point I was trying to make, which arose out of a misunderstanding of what my hon. and learned Friend was urging in his intervention, because I dealt with that point in moving the first Amendment this evening. Perhaps, however, I could answer the hon. Gentleman the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) as to the relation of the second limb of the Clause with the first. The words
The foregoing provisions of this Act
apply, as he indicates, to Clauses 1 and 2. That means that they shall not apply to a judge who is serving at the moment, unless he elects that they shall apply. If he elects that they shall apply to him, then he attracts the whole of the provisions of Clauses 1 and 2: not only Clause 1 (2)—a pension of one-half of the annual salary after fifteen years—but also the provisions of Clause 1 (3) where the period of relevant service is less than fifteen years, and the provision of Clause 2 (1) of a retiring age of 75 and subsection (2) of that Clause whereby he can retire prematurely at 70 and get his graduated pension.
8.0 p.m.
All those provisions are attracted to a judge who elects to contract in under the first limb of Clause 3 (1). If he does not elect to contract in and attract those provisions to himself, the second limb, as we have sought to amend it, will read in this way:
and in default of such an election the annual amount of the pension which may be granted


under the relevant pension enactment to any such person who retires when qualified for such a pension shall be one half of his last annual salary.
I hope that form of words is plainer than the form of words in the Bill as drafted, which I tried to explain on Second Reading.
The effect is that a judge who does not elect to attract to himself all the provisions of Clauses 1 and 2 will then attract to himself only the provision for a pension of one-half of his last annual salary. He will not be subject to a retiring age. He will not be able to retire at 70 and claim a graduated pension.
The hon. Gentleman asked me not only to explain the meaning of the Clause, which I hope I have succeeded in doing this time, but also the justice of it. The justice of it is this. There has been a long established principle that in amending legislation one should respect the legitimate expectations of people who are at present in office when there is a change in the conditions of service. It would be very unfair and a grave departure from that principle if we now said that a judge, unless he contracted into the foregoing provisions of the Bill, which are new provisions, and particularly the retiring age of 75, should have to forgo any increase in pension. It would be also contrary, I think, to the public interest in that it would be an inducement to judges not to retire, even though they had reached the point when the mental and physical faculties were starting to go. So, on general justice and on grounds of public expedience, it seems to me that that is a salutory and proper provision.

Mr. Ross: In view of the Solicitor-General's explanation, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: In page 2, line 9, leave out "to him".

In line 10, leave out from "enactment" to "be" in line 11 and insert:
to any such person who retires when qualified for such a pension shall".—[The Solicitor-General.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5.—(RATE OF LORD CHANCELLOR'S PENSION.)

Mr. Ross: I beg to move, in page 3, line 12, after "Act", to insert:
having served in that office for a continuous period of at least five years".
If we allow this Clause to pass un-amended it will mean that the Lord Chancellor will be able to attract a pension now of £5,000 a year, without any conditions at all as to service. My hon. Friends have pointed out how long ordinary people had to serve to get very much smaller pensions than those we are discussing. A case was put up to give people pensions after five years' service, but this is the finest and brightest of them all.
The annual amount of any pension granted under the Lord Chancellor's Pension Act, 1832, for service as Lord Chancellor shall, in the case of a person who resigns that office after the commencement of this Act, be five thousand pounds,…".
It is as simple as that. When we look at the Lord Chancellor's Pension Act, 1832, we find that at that time it specifically said that the pension was free of tax. I wonder if this proposed pension will be free of tax—I hope not. I should be very worried if it were. Now the pension is to be £5,000.
My hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough) raised questions on this point on Second Reading, and no answers were given. Would it be right that, if at the end of any Parliament a Lord Chancellor was appointed and after a fortnight resigned, or was sacked, he should be entitled to a pension of £5,000? The same thing could apply year after year. In other words, there is no limit as to time in the holding of that office. This pension is unlike that of the Speaker of the House, in respect of whom we decide to do something about his pension after he has retired, because in the case of the Lord Chancellor the pension is fixed as soon as he is appointed. Trust the lawyers to look after themselves! They are taking no chances with any recalcitrant House of Commons or House of Lords. In their case the conditions apply from the start.
I should like to know why we should give the Lord Chancellor—especially the present one—a pension increase of £1,500 without any conditions at all. I


hope that the Solicitor-General will not tell us that the pension was £5,000 in 1831 and is less than that now. We all know that that is so. It was reduced in order to be able to provide a pension under the provisions of the Act dealing with widows and dependants.
I should like to know why the Lord Chancellor, as distinct from anybody else, gets a pension even if he holds his office for only a day. We have two Solicitors-General sitting on the Front Bench, and I would like the Solicitor-General for England to confirm that this is the position. The Lord Chancellor's contact with Scotland is very slight. He does not even look after our justices of the peace. The hon. and learned Gentleman need not be worried that a Scotsman is attacking the office of the Lord Chancellor and the conditions attaching to his pension. I should have thought it was wise to put in some condition of service. That would certainly satisfy the public. There should be a reference to the time for which the office is held.
I know that the Solicitor-General may say that if we put those words in the Clause will read:
a person who resigns that office after the commencement of this Act, having served in that office for a continuous period of at least five years, …
and that may well mean that the present Lord Chancellor would be ruled out in respect of a pension until he had completed a continuous five years of service after the passing of this Measure. I am quite prepared that the Clause should be interpreted in that way. The Lord Chancellor has a special obligation to our people in relation to the changes which are to be made in his salary and pension.
Unlike every other person operating in a judicial capacity, the Lord Chancellor is a politician. That is one of the notorious anomalies that have been common throughout the centuries. We are just on the morrow of an Election, and we can still go round the countryside and see references to the fact that the Lord Chancellor is speaking on behalf of a political party. During the early part of last month he and his wife spent much time in making political speeches. He spoke in Rugby, Watford, and other places telling the people why the old-age pensioners could not have an

increase in their pensions and why it was so wrong for the Labour Party to say that this should be done.
8.15 p.m.
I wonder if he told his audiences that one of the first Bills to be introduced by the Government of which he was a Member would provide, among other things, for an increase in his pension from £3,500 to £5,000 a year? It might have made a considerable difference to the outlook of his audiences when he was speaking on the subject of the profligacy of the Labour Party in the spending of Government money. We Scots are traditionally concerned about the spending of Government money. During the General Election I noticed a letter to The Times saying that Members of Parliament should return to the old convention of scrutinising carefully the expenditure of the Executive. That is what we are doing. We are asking the Solicitor-General to ensure that before qualifying for a pension of £5,000 a Lord Chancellor should serve the country, in his judicial capacity, at least for a reasonable time. We have suggested a period of five years.
Since the Goverment's provision is a new departure and since it comes immediately following an election, in which the issue of pensions loomed very largely and was referred to in strong terms by the present incumbent of the office of Lord Chancellor, the Government ought to be prepared to agree that the provision requiring the office to be held for at least five years should start with him.

Mr. Willis: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross). I hope that the Solicitor-General has noticed that our Amendments are very modest ones. We do not seek to achieve a great deal. We seek only to achieve a certain amount of justice. The Amendment provides merely that before a Lord Chancellor receives a pension he shall have done something to earn it. Under the present legislation he need hardly do anything at all. A few weeks or a few months of office entitles him to a pension of £5,000 a year.
The Amendment merely ensures that the Lord Chancellor gives the nation a certain length of service in his office before he qualifies for a pension. I do not know anybody else of whom we say,


"It does not matter how long you hold your office; you will get a pension when you leave that office." Nobody else receives that special treatment. This is all part of the great hocus-pocus that we have erected around legal appointments.
I have no doubt that the Solicitor-General will say that we must bring this pension into line with the others, and that if we do not we will not get the best type of man for the job. That is the sort of argument that we get, that they are eminent men with great experience and knowledge, and all the other words that are used to elaborate that point. That is what we shall be told.
I wonder whether that is true. If the pension remained at the present figure of £3,500 I wonder whether there would be fewer men striving to get that pension. I wonder whether they would not still be highly qualified men. I think that they would be. The argument that high qualifications are required, or expected, for the job provides no answer to the principle that one gets a pension whether one has given any service or not. That is virtually what is established under the Lord Chancellor's Pension Act, 1132, about which the Bill does nothing and about which we seek, in a humble capacity, to try to achieve something.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock was right. During the recent election hon. Gentlemen opposite had a lot to say about expenditure and that we could not afford this and that we could not afford that. Where are those hon. Genlemen now? Where are those great orators who, all over the country, spoke about the extravagance of a Socialist Government which, incidentally, reduced the Chancellor's pension, or at least provided a quid pro quo? We did not hear anything about this proposed increase of £1,500 with no length of service specified to earn it. Nothing was said about that at the election. We must remember, too, that no contributions are to be paid for this increased pension.
Last night, we were told that the Government could not find the money to assist depopulated areas of Britain. Means were not at the disposal of the Government for that purpose, but we are now being asked to provide an additional £1,500 for somebody who does

not have to hold the job for any specific length of time before he gets a pension.
Is there not something fantastic and crazy about this? I am confident that if people generally knew about this position they would not tolerate it. It has historic origins and we are still encumbered with it, but it is quite out of accord with modern ideas. I cannot imagine even good Conservatives in my division supporting this. I do not think that we would have done anything as silly as this in Scotland. One of my hon. Friends asks me, "Are there any good Tories?".

Mr. Ross: Those who will vote Labour at the next General Election.

Mr. Willis: Is there any justification for this proposed increase? If there is, we shall be pleased to know what it is. I have tried to think of the possible arguments in favour of it. I can think only of the argument about attracting the right people to this high and important post, but that would not justify the position of having no specified length of service. It might justify a high pension, but I cannot think why it should justify a man getting a pension without having served for a specific length of time.
I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock would be willing to alter the period to six years or seven years if the Government were prepared to put a time limit into the Bill. If the Government were prepared to do that I would be ready to consider it, but we ought to be given some explanation.

Mr. George Lawson: Would my hon. Friend be happy with the present Lord Chancellor for another six or seven years?

Mr. Willis: I am never happy to have a Tory in any office, not even for five minutes, never mind for five years. Un-fortunately, we are in the position that we are in today, but for my part I would not have a Tory in any office at all.

The Solicitor-General: The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) said, and I accept this right away, that he was not attacking the present Lord Chancellor but was referring to his office. I accept that unhesitatingly. The present Lord Chancellor was highly regarded when he was a House of Commons man


and hon. Members knew him very well for many years. I know that there was no towards him in any part of the House.
May I first deal with certain specific questions that the hon. Gentleman asked me, then go on to look at the operation of the Amendment on a narrow basis, taking it literally, and then deal with some of the wider considerations that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) raised?
The hon. Member for Kilmarnock asked whether if the Lord Chancellor retired immediately after taking office he could draw a pension. The answer is that he could. No period is specified, and there never has been since the introduction of the Lord Chancellor's Pension Act, 1832. The hon. Gentleman also asked whether the pension was paid free of tax. The answer is that no part of it is paid free of tax.

Mr. Ross: When was that alteration made?

The Solicitor-General: I am not sure, but I think it was in the middle 'fifties. I think it was then that the Lord Chancellor lost his tax benefit.

Mr. Lawson: If the pension is not free of tax, to what extent are there special allowances which go with that office that are free of tax?

The Solicitor-General: I am told that the pension was always subject to tax. What I had in mind, and what I think the hon. Gentleman had in mind, was the Lord Chancellor's salary under the early provisions.

Mr. Ross: No.

The Solicitor-General: I am told that no part of the pension was ever free of tax. It certainly is not today; and there are no benefits that go with it, except those benefits which are allowable under the 1950 Act, the ancillary benefits.
May I turn now to the effect of the Amendment. I am not going to deal with its effect on the present Lord Chancellor, in that its effect on him would mean that he would have to serve, unlike previous Lord Chancellors or any future Lord Chancellors, for a period of five years after the passing of the Act, be-

cause that seems to me to be unjustifiably unfair to the present incumbent of the office.
8.30 p.m.
I should like now to look at the wider aspects. The Amendment does not say that it must be a cumulative period of five years, but that it must be a continuous period of five years. The Committee might be interested to know how that would have operated in the past. There have been 28 Lord Chancellors who have held the office since 1827. Of those, eighteen did not serve a continuous period of five years, although quite a number served for a period of more than five years in the aggregate. One must remember that during all that time until, I think, 1918, Parliament was operating under a septennial Act, so that it was more likely that a Lord Chancellor could put in a period of five years during a period of party Government.
Today, we operate under a quinquennial provision, and such are the chances of party fortune that one would normally anticipate in a Government, with a swing backwards and forwards, a period of less than five years' continuous service. Personally, I should like to think that what we have seen at the last three General Elections would be repeated indefinitely. I see that the right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) does not agree with that, and I did not expect him to.
In any event, in the nature of things, that cannot continue. The normal movement of party Government is an alternating of parties. I should therefore have thought that it would be a quite unreal and unfair test to demand a continuous period of at least five years.
However, I thought it right to look at the matter also in its larger context although, perhaps, this is more relevant to the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill", although both hon. Members raised this point. They both said that the Lord Chancellor is a politician. That is absolutely true. His position is unique and, in a sense, constitutionally anomalous, but very ancient. I have heard the present Lord Chancellor describe himself as a standing refutation of Montesquieu's division of powers in the British Constitution, and that is true. He sits in the


Government, he is at the head of the judiciary and he presides over the House of Lords. It is a very ancient office and a very important office; and as long as a Lord Chancellor is part of our Constitution and is head of the judiciary I think it is incumbent on us to provide for proper emoluments, for him, including pension.
Why should he have what the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East quite rightly described as unique conditions of service? Why should he be able to draw his pension even though he does no period of service to qualify for it? That really follows from the nature of his office. Here, perhaps, I may be allowed to give an example, although I prefer not to take a living one, of a Lord Chancellor.
One looks at the career of Lord Jowitt. I remember that when I went to the Bar he was a commanding figure there—a great lawyer, a great advocate, as some hon. Members will remember. He went straight from office as, I think, Attorney-General, to Lord Chancellor. He could undoubtedly have graced the Court of Appeal or the House of Lords. He would have been an admirable judge, a wonderful judge, wherever he was called to do judicial service, but he was called to the office of Lord Chancellor.
It seems to me that it would be very unfair, and very unwise, to say that because he took that particular line of career he should be worse treated in the way of pension than the judges, some of whom sat under him, or the judiciary of which he was the head. If we want to attract that sort of man to the office of Lord Chancellor—making it an alternative judicial career, even though it has the constitutional oddity of also being a political career—if we want to attract the commanding lawyer into that job we must pay a reasonable, indeed, a generous pension.

Mr. Ross: Is he a Lord of Appeal?

The Solicitor-General: No, he is not a Lord of Appeal.

Mr. Willis: How is he worse off than a judge? A judge would not get a pension within six months.

The Solicitor-General: That was my next point. He has no security. If a

man with the choice of going on the bench or becoming the Lord Chancellor decides on the bench, he knows that he can serve for fifteen years, or whatever it is, and earn his pension. The Lord Chancellor is subject to the exigencies of political life. He has not the security. He is, in addition, presiding judicially, even as Lord Chancellor, over Lords of Appeal in Ordinary enjoying a salary of £9,000 a year which will attract, under the provisions of the Bill which the Committee has already approved, a pension of £4,500 a year after fifteen years service.
It goes further than that. When a Lord Chancellor retires, he cannot return to the Bar. If he did, there is no doubt that with the attainments of men who become Lord Chancellors he could earn a very considerable salary. Nor is it altogether in accordance with custom that he should take outside posts. There is a certain moral compulsion on him that he should continue to sit in, and preside over, the House of Lords and the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. I do not want to put this too high. There is certainly no statutory obligation on an ex-Lord Chancellor to sit judicially whilst in receipt of his pension, and there is certainly no such conventional obligation in the constitutional sense, but there is a moral obligation on him. As the Committee knows, it has been the custom of ex-Lord Chancellors to continue to preside over the House of Lords and the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. One has only to think of the service rendered by a man like Lord Simon to appreciate what wonderful contribution can be made in that sort of service to the development of our law.

Mr. Willey: I believe that the convention was broken by Lord Birkenhead. In view of that, would it not be wise to take some precautionary step, because that caused a very considerable stir at the time?

The Solicitor-General: The hon. Gentleman is right. There was very considerable, indeed acrimonious, controversy at the time. However, when Lord Birkenhead went into the City he did not draw, although he put on record his right to draw, his pension as an ex-Lord Chancellor.
I used my words carefully and advisedly in speaking of the sort of


obligation that there is on a Lord Chancellor. In recent times ex-Lord Chancellors retiring on pension have presided with very great distinction and very great public advantage in the House of Lords and the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. There is this to be added. When an ex-Lord Chancellor is doing that—with his pension of £5,000 under the Bill and £3,750 at present—he is presiding over Lords of Appeal in Ordinary who are earning salaries much in excess of his pension. As it works out at the moment, it is very much to the public's financial advantage. For those reasons and because the Amendment is defective, in that it in any event asks for a continuous period of five years, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel that it should not be pressed.

Mr. Ross: I am not entirely convinced of the argument that there should be no period, although I see the objections in relation to the period we have put down and the qualification that it must be continuous. I assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that we thought seriously about whether it should be three or four years rather than five, and we took five as being the normal term, although it is once again theoretically rather fictitious in the reality of the term of a Parliament.
I hope that the Solicitor-General will have a look at this matter again. I am prepared to accept the replacement of the word "continuous" by the word "aggregate", or another word such as that, to ensure that broken periods could be built up to meet the time specified. I am not touched to a great extent by what has been said in relation to the wider arguments. What I want to ensure is that there should be something in the nature of service adequate to the pension being granted. Most of the Solicitor-General's arguments are based upon tradition which has been breached, not centuries ago, but during the present half-century. That is a matter with which I proposed to deal on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," but I will not go into that matter now. Although I am prepared to withdraw the Amendment, I would ask the Solicitor-General to have another look at the narrower point about time and service. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Ross: I should like the Government to take this Clause out of the Bill altogether, for the simple reason that I do not think that a Clause which deals with the Lord Chancellor should also deal with judges. The Lord Chancellor is a very different individual altogether. The Act of Parliament which laid down the pension of the Lord Chancellor was a separate Measure which applied purely and simply to him. That Act, which I think is mentioned in the Bill, was The Lord Chancellor's Pension Act, 1832. It laid down a pension of £5,000, which, as far as I can see, was to be paid quarterly without any deduction of tax or any other deductions. I think that those are the words of the 1832 Act.

Mr. Willis: I think that the words are
free and clear of all taxes and deductions whatsoever …

The Solicitor-General: I should not like to mislead the Committee. That does not mean that the pension is paid without deduction of Income Tax. At the time, there was no Income Tax, which was introduced about ten years later. I think that the words refer to deductions by way of land taxes, and that sort of thing.

Mr. Ross: The point is that it was for all time. We always legislate, not for the day, not for the year, but for all time. First, I think that we should follow the precedent of 1832 and keep the Lord Chancellor separate. Secondly, it is quite wrong, in dealing with judges, and with principles and the arguments relating to those principles that might well support something being done in relation to the justiciary, to include within the Bill a Clause dealing with someone who has always claimed to be entirely different and who is very different indeed. Here we have the anomaly, to which the Solicitor-General has referred, of a man who is, that strange thing, the link between the justiciary and the Executive. We have always said that the thing to do is to keep the two entirely separate. We have at the head of our legal system this strange animal who is also a politician, a placed politician, and a member of the Cabinet. Neither the House of Lords nor the House of


Commons has any say in his appointment. He is appointed by the Prime Minister.
8.45 p.m.
One of the strange things is that whereas, when we elect a Speaker of the House of Commons, we take into account his years of service, his experience and everything else, the chances are that the man who presides in another place has had no experience of another place and has never spent any time there, because of late the office has been dealt with on the basis of granting him a peerage on his appointment.
He is not only a politician, but a party politician. This is where it becomes difficult to avoid referring to the fact that no person has been more of a party politician than the present holder of the office. I remember the Lord Chancellor when he was in the House of Commons. [Interruption.] We will come to the noble Lord, Lord Birkenhead, presently. I remember reading some of the speeches delivered by the present Lord Chancellor in another place relating to party political matters. At one moment, the Lord Chancellor is sitting as the President of the assembly in another place. The next minute, he can step down and become one of the leading spokesmen of the Government.
It would be far better to deal with the Lord Chancellor's pension when we are dealing with the pensions of politicians. The Prime Minister is not making any change in his own pension nor in the pension of Mr. Speaker or of Members of Parliament. Why should we single out one political animal—the Lord Chancellor—to give him this additional pension of £1,250, remembering that he has just come from the hustings?
I took the trouble to see exactly where the Lord Chancellor had been. He was in quite a few places, and so was his wife—we must remember that now his wife is covered for pension, too—actively pursuing a political programme and attacking another political programme. It was said from the Dispatch Box today or on Second Reading by the Solicitor-General—or was it the Attorney-General on Second Reading—that the Bill arose from a promise given in another place when attention was drawn to the anoma-

lies relating to the pension of the higher justiciary as compared with others. Therefore, when he was attacking my party in relation to the pensions of simple, ordinary people, the Lord Chancellor must have known that one of the first pieces of legislation would relate purely and personally to himself, amongst others. It would have been far better from the viewpoint of the Lord Chancellor and of politics that he should have been left out of the Bill. If the Government and the Lord Chancellor felt that he should be dealt with, it should be done in a separate Bill.
The Lord Chancellor is not only a judicial being, but he is also a politician. That has always been so. The Solicitor-General spoke about the tradition that a Lord Chancellor did not go into business after leaving office. From the Dispatch Box, the hon. and learned Gentleman proclaimed tradition. My hon. Friend rightly mentioned what happened with Lord Birkenhead. He went into the City. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman remember Lord Birkenhead in another place, as Lord Chancellor, proclaiming tradition to Lord Carson?
If anyone is interested, there are some glorious pages in the reports of the House of Lords for 22nd, 27th and 29th March, 1921, when the Lord Chancellor attacked Lord Carson for daring to be a politician because he was a Law Lord. He drew attention to how exceptional a being he, as Lord Chancellor, was and said how right it was that freedom of political expression should be open to him and that it was wrong for any other judicial Lord to make rather bitter speeches taunting the Government of the day. When we recognise that the person who can proclaim tradition can himself within a few years break tradition, we must be cagey about this business of an appeal once again to tradition, even though it comes from someone as pleasant, as courteous and as clear as the Solicitor-General.
I raise my objection to the Clause on the strange existence of this anomaly, which is quite inexplicable and in many ways indefensible. The only thing is that it works. It has been found of some practical use through the centuries. It is a violation of the sanctity of our constitution and all our theories about the constitution. That being so, if we cannot


make the separation within the one person, we can make the separation in relation to Bills dealing with the two factions.
In 1832, we had a separate Act of Parliament dealing with the Lord Chancellor's pension. We have recently had an election, in which the Lord Chancellor took a prominent part. I shall not quote arty speeches—that would be unfair, because the Bill does not devolve entirely from the personality of the Lord Chancellor. It devolves from the anomaly that he is a politician and, since he is a politician, when there is an election, he must speak for his party as one of the spokesmen of his party.
This being so, he should not be treated in legislation which deals with judges, judges who are not allowed to be partisan, judges who are not allowed to enter into the controversy and heat of party battle. In this matter, there should be separate legislation for the Lord Chancellor.
I am not speaking now about whether £5,000 is enough, too much, or suitable. I am dealing with the question of principle. The Lord Chancellor is a politician and an active political partisan. During the General Election, he was a spokesman of a party which has been telling people that they cannot have this, that or the other, yet now his own pension is to be raised. It would have been far better to take the Lord Chancellor's pension out of a Bill dealing with the judges and provide for it in a Bill of its own. I hope that the Solicitor-General will agree.
Lord Haldane, speaking in another place, in 1922 said:
Lord Chancellors and ex-Lord Chancellors are, of course, in a different position. The Lord Chancellor is a member of the Government, and ex-Lord Chancellors, by the terms of their patents, are put expressly in that position of freedom."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 22nd March, 1922; Vol. 49, e. 725.]
Therefore, let us now deal with him along with other members of the judiciary who have not that freedom, and who, because they are outwith politics, should be dealt with in different legislation relating to them alone. It is always claimed that the Lord Chancellor is different from the judges, from the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary elsewhere, and his

behaviour is not to be compared with that of the judges, be it in the House of Lords or in the country generally, in political matters. I assert again that they should be dealt with in separate legislation and in different ways, and I sincerely hope that, even if, after further consideration, the Solicitor-General does not agree with me, he will drop this Clause from the Bill.

Mr. Willis: I agree with a great deal of what my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) has said about the duality of the position of the Lord Chancellor, but I doubt that the introduction of a separate Bill would do very much. There is certainly an argument for a separate Bill, but it does not seem to me that the introduction of a separate Bill to deal with the pension of the Lord Chancellor would settle the matter with which my hon. Friend was concerned.
I should have thought that the present incumbent of the office would serve his office much better if he kept a little more free of party politics in their most acute form than he does. He is one of the Government's chief spokesmen in by-elections and General Elections. Indeed, he is a very expensive Conservative propagandist, but, unfortunately, he costs the taxpayer a great deal of money. I do not really see how this fits in with the conception which the hon. and learned Gentleman has been advancing from the Dispatch Box about this mighty office, this office of dignity under the Crown. It should be one thing or the other.
I agree that the fact that it is a political appointment and, at the same time, the Lord Chancellor is head of the judiciary, creates an anomalous situation, but—I say this with very great respect—it would be far better for his office if the Lord Chancellor kept freer from the political arena. After all, some Lord Chancellors do not take a great part in political activity at all. That is very desirable. I cannot imagine that the position will be sorted out in some way, because in this country we usually build upon or move forward from tradition. Nevertheless, I feel that matters might be far better ordered than they are today.
I am still dissatisfied about the arguments advanced by the hon. and learned Gentleman about a period of years.
Admitting all the difficulties, I still cannot see any reason why a person should be in a position to do one month's service and then receive a pension of £5,000. I thought that the hon. and learned Gentleman was coming to our point of view when he spoke about continuous service. Like my hon. Friend, I think it might be quite useful to consider a shorter period, even two or three years, or even a period of broken service; but it surely cannot be right, no matter what the office is, for a person to receive £5,000 a year even though he serves only one day. At least, it does not seem to me to be right.
I am prepared to accept a great deal of what the hon. and learned Gentleman said about the difficulties of the situation, but it still seems to me that some period, perhaps even only a year, ought to be laid down. I do not accept as right that this business is not laid down at all. As a compromise, why not make it a year, or eighteen months, or two years? After all, most Governments last at least eighteen months or two years. I should have thought it could have been two years' broken service. It would be a peculiar set of circumstances which resulted in a man's holding the position for less than two years allowing for broken service. That, surely, would be most acceptable.
9.0 p.m.
Why should the matter not be placed upon the same footing as that on which Mr. Speaker's pension stands? Mr. Speaker's pension is granted as a result of a Motion and of a Bill in the House on the occasion of the retiral of each Speaker. That would be a better arrangement than this Then the pension could be given in accordance with what might be considered to be the circumstances of the time.
A man might be Lord Chancellor only five minutes. He might be appointed and then decide, at the end of an hour. "I do not think that I want the office," and then he becomes entitled to £5,000 a year. Surely there is something wrong with that method?
I do not ask the Law Officers to look at this again, because I do not suppose that they would make much change, but I really think that it is something which the Government ought to look at. The

principle seems to me to be quite a wrong one, one which could not be supported very ably. With all due respect to him, I do not think that the hon. and learned Gentleman's arguments, with some of which I agree, made a very powerful case that a man should get a pension of £5,000 after one day. Is not this really something which ought to be looked at very seriously by the Government, with a view to putting it on a sounder basis and one more acceptable to the people? I am sure that if I spoke about this at meetings in my constituency people would be quite annoyed about it. The fact is that most people do not know what goes on. I did not know about this until the Bill came.
The answer seems to lie either in the acceptance of some of the other ideas which have been advanced, or by putting the Lord Chancellor in a position similar to that of Mr. Speaker, whose pension is decided upon after the determination of the period of office. All the factors which the hon. and learned Gentleman himself mentioned could then be taken into account, justice could be done to the individual, the dignity of the office, about which we heard, could be preserved, and the relationship of the Lord Chancellor's position with that of other judges could also be preserved. All this could be done if that course were adopted. It seems to any ordinary layman a much more desirable way in which to approach this matter.

The Solicitor-General: I advanced, in answer to the last Amendment, a number of considerations which really relate to the wider issues which are raised on this Clause, and I know that the Committee would not wish to be wearied by a repetition of them.

Mr. G. R. Howard (St. Ives): Hear, hear.

Mr. Willis: Let the hon. Member tell his constituents about it.

The Solicitor-General: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) said, quite rightly, that the Lord Chancellor is a strange animal, a political animal. He is, of course, partly that. As I ventured to point out, on all the generally accepted theories of the division of powers in the constitution his is a quite anomalous post.
But, as the hon. Gentleman himself said—and this is its justification—it works. It has worked now for many centuries, and there has not been any suggestion that we should change the character of the Lord Chancellor's office.
What the hon. Gentleman says is that, in so far as he is not wholly a judge, in so far as he is a party politician, he should not be dealt with in the Bill. I think that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) was rather exaggerating the political activities of my noble Friend, certainly as compared with those of some of his predecessors. There was Lord Brougham, who was in the very centre of politics, very much more in politics than in the law, because it was said of him that if he knew a little law he would know a little about everything. There have been certain other Lord Chancellors, who have been very much in the centre of political controversy.

Mr. Willis: Brougham was not considered to be a very great Chancellor.

The Solicitor-General: I am sure that the hon. Member for Kilmarnock will not take it amiss—I should be very sorry if he did, When he has been so courteous and so generous in what he has said about me—but it seems to me to be doctrinaire to say that, because a Lord Chancellor is not purely a judge, he should not be dealt with in the Bill.
The answer is that he is partly a judge, and he is head of the judiciary. Surely, in a Bill in which we are raising the pensions of the judiciary generally, it is sensible to deal with his at the same time. It would not be sensible, on the other hand, to leave his pension where it is at £3,750, when he will be presiding over the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary, each of whom will be earning a salary of £9,000 a year, and who themselves will be retiring on a pension of £4,500 a year. It is because he is the head of the judiciary that it is right to deal with him in this Bill.

Mr. Frederick Willey: Accepting all that he has said, does not the hon. and learned Gentleman think that his noble Friend the Lord Chancellor should review his conduct during the past General Election and think of the desirability of setting a new standard, because it was his conduct

during the election that has led to some of the criticisms that have been made during this debate?

The Solicitor-General: No, I do not accept that for a moment. I do not accept that my noble and learned Friend's conduct during the General Election or at any time is in any way subject to criticism.
What I do say is that either it is right to raise his pension or it is not. If it is not right, it is not more right to do it in another Bill, and if it is right, it is sensible to do it in the Bill. Furthermore, it is logical to do it, because the Lord Chancellor is head of the judiciary.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East returned to the more general aspect of the length of service, and suggested that even if one had, say, three years' service, it would be a fair test. But that would have excluded for example, Lord Haldane, unless we put in cumulative periods.

Mr. Willis: I said cumulative periods.

The Solicitor-General: If it were cumulative periods he could have put in his period as a Liberal Lord Chancellor, and his period as a Socialist Lord Chancellor. But it would certainly have excluded Lord Maugham and Lord Sankey, because the period of the second Labour Government was under three years.
The hon. Gentleman asked why we should not deal with the Lord Chancellor's pension as we deal with that of the Speaker—on retirement. It seems to me that that is subject to overwhelming objection. In the first place, it is not realistic, when one thinks that one would be voting a pension, not to the occupant of the Chair of this House, who is above party politics, but to a man who has been actively engaged in party politics.
There is another and far more fundamental objection. In my submission, it would be wrong to vote a pension to a judge at the end of his period of service, because it would mean that he would be looking to the executive and to the Legislature in his conduct as a judge, even subconsciously, to fix his pension.

Mr. Willis: That argument is not sound. He owes his position to the Government. He is a political appointee. Surely the fact that he depends for his appointment upon the Government of the


day creates the situation which the hon. and learned Gentleman said is bad. He is looking to the Government in power. Is not that precisely what he is doing?

The Solicitor-General: Through my fault, the hon. Gentleman did not understand the point which I was trying to make. The Lord Chancellor would not be looking to the Government in power—of his own party—for a pension; he would be looking to the other party. In addition, one must not forget that he continues to sit as a judge. He continues to preside in retirement, as an ex-Lord Chancellor, over the House of Lords in its judicial business and over the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. It seems to me constitutionally objectionable in those circumstances that the pension should be other than fixed in advance of his service. That is why it seems to me to be right that we should deal in this way and in the Bill with the Lord Chancellor's pension, and I hope that the Committee will allow the Clause to stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Ross: I am interested in the argument that on no account must an ex-Lord Chancellor receive less than those over whom he is presiding.

The Solicitor-General: I did not say that. Even under the Bill he will have less. It is a question of degree. Is it right that he should have a pension of only £3,750 and that we should expect him to continue to do the work of a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary, who is being paid currently £9,000? That is the argument.

Mr. Ross: The argument falls to the ground. As the Solicitor-General has said, even under the Bill the Lord Chancellor will have less. It is not long since the hon. and learned Gentleman left the Treasury. Time after time we drew to his attention the anomalous position of the Secretary of State for Air. This is a justifiable analogy, for the Secretary of State for Air, in presiding over the Air Council, presides over poeple who are paid far more highly than he is. The Under-Secretary of State for Air is the lowest-paid member of that Council.
In view of all the years the hon. and learned Member was connected with the Treasury, when he did not worry at all about the authority of Ministers who

were placed in exactly this position in relation to civil servants, I am interested to know how he can advance that argument. If ever he is tempted to repeat it on any other Bill relating to the Lord Chancellor or anyone else, I hope that he will dismiss the argument from his mind, unless he has first dealt with the point which I have made.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 6 to 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9.—(CONSEQUENTIAL AMEND MENTS, ETC.)

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Ross: I beg to move, in page 4, line 32, to leave out from "Court" to "subsection" in line 33.
Clause 9 (3) as it stands in the Bill reads:
In relation to the person who holds the office of Chairman of the Scottish Land Court at the commencement of this Act, subsection (1) of section three of this Act shall have effect as if for the words 'one half' there were substituted the words 'nine-sixteenths'.
This is where the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. G. R. Howard), who is rather impatiently waiting for us to finish, should not be blaming us at all but the negligence of the Scottish Office, because on Second Reading I asked the question which I am about to ask again and I could not get an answer because there was no one here to give it. The Secretary of State for Scotland had made a fleeting intervention and then fled. I bet he wishes that he had done that yesterday, too. The Attorney-General was nowhere to be seen, and the Solicitor-General for Scotland was obviously keeping him company.
I asked the reasonable question why we should have the condition in the Clause that only to the present Chairman of the Scottish Land Court—and obviously from the wording this will not apply to anybody else after him—are the words "nine sixteenths" and not "one half" to apply. There may be a very simple explanation. I am perfectly sure there is, but if there is, someone ought to have been here to give it to us on Second Reading so that we should have been spared this inquiry.
The words
… subsection (1) of section three of this Act…


takes us way back to the First Schedule. We look at the First Schedule and we find that there is no mention of the gentleman we are talking about. Once again there must be a simple explanation but the Chairman of the Scottish Land Court is not mentioned in the First Schedule. Therefore, we come to ask once again pleadingly of the Solicitor-General for Scotland whether he will satisfy our curiosity and our desire for legislative purity and clarity and explain this in relation to Clause 9.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I will do my best to satisfy the hon. Member's desires and his curiosity.

Mr. Willis: We are all curious.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I know that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) is curious, but perhaps I am using the word in a sense different from that in which he is using it.
I do not think that the Amendment would have the effect which the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) thinks it would have, I would propose not to speak of what he thinks that it would do but to treat it on its merits, because I am sure that he would like me to do that.

Mr. Willis: rose—

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: Let me try to explain.

Mr. Willis: What does what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has just said mean?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I understood the hon. Member for Kilmarnock to have suggested that his Amendment was designed to give to future incumbents of the office of Chairman of the Scottish Land Court the option of the nine-sixteenths.

Mr. Ross: I did not say anything of the kind.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: That was the deduction that I made from the slightly cagey set of remarks made by the hon. Member. If that is not the intended result of the Amendment, no doubt the hon. Member will say so, but I assumed that it was. As I understood, he complained that the present incum-

bent received nine-sixteenths if he so opted and a future incumbent received only eight-sixteenths. I do not believe that the Amendment would achieve the object of giving future incumbents nine-sixteenths. I do not propose to go into that in detail because I prefer, and I think that the hon. Member and the Committee would prefer, that I should deal with the matter on the merits.
The position in regard to the chairman of the Scottish Land Court is that he held an office which started in 1911. Under the Act which created that office he then received a salary of £2,000 a year as compared with the salary then of an ordinary judge of the Court of Session of £3,600. It was laid down in the 1911 Act that he should rank in regard to pension under the same conditions—I think the words were "incidents and conditions" as judges of the Court of Session. Accordingly, he received three-quarters of £2,000 after the qualifying service, judges of the Court of Session receiving three-quarters of £3,600 equally after the qualifying service.
After 1911 and until 1954 the chairman of the Scottish Land Court received a number of increases in salary, bringing him up to the current rate of £4,100. That salary ranks wholly for pension whereas the ordinary judge of the Court of Session, who remained on £3,600 until 1954 when he received his increase—£3,000 in that year—got that increase on the basis that it did not count for pension purposes.
As hon. Members no doubt know, the three-quarters was reduced to the nine-sixteenths because of the widows' benefits and so on, but even with that, the result has been that the chairman of the Scottish Land Court is now entitled on qualification to a higher pension than a judge of the Court of Session—I can give the figures if anyone wants them. That is merely because his increases in salary have been all pensionable whereas the only increases which the judges of the Court of Session have had have not been pensionable.
In this Bill we are making the whole of the Court of Session judge's salary pensionable and, in fact, putting it back on the same basis as it was before 1954—

Mr. Ross: That was three-quarters.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: No, it was three-quarters before 1950. The increase of £3,000 was given in 1954. What we are doing in this Bill is to get back to the traditional relationship in regard to pension rights between the Chairman of the Scottish Land Court and the judges of the Court of Session which operated between 1911 and 1950. It got out of gear only because the Scottish Land Court increases in salary were all pensionable whereas those for judges of the Court of Session were not, and the traditional, long-standing method is one-half of the pension. Shall I put it another way: the traditional, long-standing method is the same fraction of the salary.
It would be unfair to the present incumbent, who is entitled to the nine-sixteenths, to bring him down to the eight-sixteenths because that has arisen only through force of circumstances. It seems to me that to give a future Chairman of the Land Court a right to nine-sixteenths would be unfair and illogical when we look at the history of the relationship between the Scottish Land Court and the Court of Session since 1911.
Quite apart from that—and this is perhaps the point that I would take on the more technical question as to whether the Amendment achieves its object—Clause 3 (1), and in fact the whole of Clause 3, deals solely with the option for existing judges. If we were to give the option to a future Chairman of the Scottish Land Court to, as it were, exercise his Clause 3 (1) rights, we should be doing something contrary to the general principle of the Bill. Indeed, if we did it effectively, he would not be subject to an age limit because he could opt out of the provisions of Clauses 1 and 2 and opt out of the age limit.
I do not put that forward as a major argument, because I appreciate the motives of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock in moving the Amendment, and I have tried to answer him in the spirit in which he did so. I cannot, however, recommend the Committee to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Ross: I think we would all agree that, whatever the merits of my Amendment, it was very well worth while putting forward. Look at the fascinating knowledge that has been given—the side-

lights on Scottish legal history and on the struggle between the Chairman of the Scottish Land Court and the rest of the judges for supremacy of position in relation to pensions, fractions and so on. I think that is very satisfactory indeed. I can assure the Solicitor-General for Scotland that I was under no misapprehension that the Amendment would be accepted. He should know well, after his limited experience of Scottish Grand Committee, that one sometimes puts down an Amendment not to achieve its purpose but to make the Government justify what they are doing.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: That is why I dealt with the Amendment in the way I did and took no technical points.

Mr. Ross: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is quite right on that one. I thought that it was right to put down the Amendment so that at the first opportunity information could be given to people who read the Bill and who want to know why things are in it. Is there any reason why this information could not have been given when it was first asked for? I hope that in future the Scottish Law Office, and the Scottish Home Department, if it is at all interested, will at least supply someone who will be able to answer questions asked by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that it would be unfair and illogical to continue with this fraction of nine-sixteenths in relation to the Chairman of the Scottish Land Court. Is he really honest about that? He said that we must get back to the original fraction, and he then said, "Not to the original fraction—we must see that they both have the same fraction". We have departed from it for quite a number of years, and it was not for very long—1911–1930—that we had it. He now says in the fair name of logic and justice, we must not have eight-sixteenths; we must have nine-sixteenths. After all the tortuous and interesting story that he has told us on all that has happened in relation to these pensions, I am not satisfied that logic is being served by departing from nine-sixteenths. I thank him, however, for his explanation which was quite clear and could be understood, but I still do not think that he is justified in view of what is actually happening to


future Chairmen of the Scottish Land Court. I am still not satisfied about the logic of returning to the same fraction—the argument that each should have half of whatever was his salary in his final year by way of pension.
I am not going to withdraw the Amendment yet; I still hope to be convinced by the Solicitor-General for Scotland. I am sure that he has much more to tell us about the position of the Scottish Land Court. He has not explained for the benefit of Scottish Members why, when their attention is drawn to Clause 3, they find, having read ponderously through that Clause, that they are sent off to the First Schedule and then, when they read the First Schedule, they find no reference at all to the Chairman of the Scottish Land Court. Before I withdraw the Amendment the Solicitor-General for Scotland must at least explain, for the benefit of English Members if not for Scottish Members, why this gentleman is missing from the Schedule in which he is supposed to appear?

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Willis: I am still unable to understand whether the Clause provides that the Chairman of the Land Court shall have an increase in pension or whether his pension is maintained at its present level. I hope that the Solicitor-General for Scotland will be able to tell us. If it is true that the present Chairman of the Land Court receives an increase in his pension, will the next Chairman receive a lower pension than the present one? That seems to be the effect of the Clause. If so, it would seem to be quite wrong. I wanted to bring this point out when I put my name to the Amendment which has been moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross). I am surprised at the Solicitor-General for Scotland permitting this injustice to Scotland. I do not notice English people allowing any of their pensions to be reduced. Why, then, should we allow a reduction to apply in the case of the Chairman of the Scottish Land Court?
The explanations given by the right hon. and learned Gentleman provide no reason why the pension of the next holder of tile office should be smaller than that of present one. He says, "We are trying to tidy up things so that the relationship between the pension of the Chairman of

the Land Court and those of the judges will be the same as it was some years ago." But that is no reason for providing the next Chairman of the Land Court with a pension smaller than that of the present holder of that office. Is this a new policy of the Tory Government? Is their new programme to be based on a reduction of pensions? Is this what happens under the Clause? We should be told this before we part with it.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: There are three points here. The first, I think, is a drafting point. I have been asked why the Chairman of the Land Court is not mentioned in the First Schedule. The answer is that he could have been mentioned, but when one mentions Senators of the College of Justice in Scotland for pension purposes, that automatically attracts, if I might use that word in technical sense, the Chairman of the Land Court by virtue of the provisions of the 1911 Act to which I referred earlier. He is given the status of a Senator of the College of Justice and the same pension rights. When one mentions the other judges, one brings him in too.
The other question asked was whether there is to be any increase in his pension under the Bill. The answer is no. By preserving his nine-sixteenths, we are keeping his pension on the present basis. If he came under the general principle of the Bill he would suffer a reduction. The reason is that his increases in salary carried pension rights, whereas the judges' increases in salary did not. That is why he has, as it were, got out of gear. We are not putting him back because that would be unfair, but his successor will be put into gear again, probably within the simple principle of the Bill, on what I call the 50 per cent. basis. That seems to be perfectly fair. The successor, unless he were successful in getting an increase in salary, would eventually get a smaller pension than the existing incumbent.

Mr. Willis: This is quite objectionable. Hon. Gentlemen opposite would have something to say if some members of the English legal profession were to suffer a loss in their pension. When it comes to a matter affecting the English Bar, hon. Gentlemen opposite are great chums together and there are no great reductions in pensions. We do not have


any lawyers on this side of the House to look after Scottish lawyers and it is therefore left to a simple layman, who once had the privilege of representing a great number of them, to put forward our case.
It is wrong that the pension in respect of the Chairman of the Land Court is to be reduced. This is supposed to be a Bill to increase pensions, not to make them smaller. I am shocked at the Lord Advocate's Department allowing the Government to put this one over on it. What is wrong with the Department? I said some harsh words about it in the Scottish Grand Committee the other morning, and I am beginning to think that there was more truth in what I said than I thought there was at the time.
Surely, it is wrong that, as time passes, the pension of the Chairman of the Land Court will get smaller. This is being done by a Government that intended to double the standard of life in the next twenty-five years. One of the things that they are doing in the process of doubling the standard of life is to say that in this case the pension shall get smaller as time goes by. That is quite wrong. I should like to record my disappointment—nay, my dissent—because I cannot accept this as being fair to the next incumbent.

Mr. Ross: As I understand, the position is that between 1911, when the salary was £2,000 for the Chairman of the Land Court, and 1954 there have been various changes, the last rise in salary bringing the figure up to £4,100. I presume that when the change was made under the 1950 Act in relation to provision for widows and dependants the three-quarters in relation to the Chairman of the Land Court was reduced to nine-sixteenths. Therefore, as from 1950 there has been the nine-sixteenths, and from 1954 the Chairman of the Land Court, or anyone looking towards that office as successor to the present Chairman, could have expected a pension of nine-sixteenths of £4,100—

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I should, perhaps, have given the figures in more detail. The sum was £2,000 in 1911, and is now £4,100, but up to July, 1951, the salary was only £2,200. In April, 1957, it was increased to £3,600. If the hon. Gentleman works it out he will see that anyone, even in 1957, who

was thinking of becoming an ultimate incumbent of the office would be better of on the eight-sixteenths of £4,100 than on the nine-sixteenths of the then salary.

Mr. Ross: What my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) has said is substantially true. Here we have a Bill which, the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum says, will apply in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland, and that is
… (including increases in the pensions of retired judges) …
Was it not worth mentioning that it was intended to reduce the pension of one of the future senators of the College of Justice when appointed to the Scottish Land Court? Was it not worth mentioning that while we think it right to give nine-sixteenths of the salary to the present Chairman the pension of the future incumbent will be reduced by one-sixteenth?
That takes a bit of swallowing, especially when it is put to us in the cause of justice and logic. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman look again at this justice and logic? As I said earlier, I do not feel satisfied that justice and logic are being complied with when, of all those persons whose pensions are to be increased, a future incumbent is to have a reduced pension.
Will the Solicitor-General for Scotland have another look at this? I do not think that he is doing any great service to himself or to the Government, and certainly not to Scotland. Can we be assured of a further word from him on this on Report? I must press the Government on this matter. What pension will the present Chairman of the Land Court get, and what will be the pension to which his successor will be entitled?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I have worked out the actual difference, which is, presumably, the figure that the hon. Gentleman seeks, and it works out at £256 5s. per annum.

Mr. Willis: I hope that after my hon. Friend's very eloquent plea the hon. and learned Gentleman will look at this again. Surely he will not tolerate the reduction in status of this individual in a Bill that is supposed to give these people better pensions. It does not require a great deal of strain for him to say that he will look at the matter again.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am always prepared to look at anything—and sometimes, I do a great deal of looking at rather curious things. But I understand that the Report stage is being taken tonight.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Willis: We can always put in a manuscript Amendment on Report if that stage is to be taken tonight. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman handed in a manuscript Amendment to the Chair on behalf of the Government, it would be accepted. If he does not care to put in a manuscript Amendment to the Chair, will he consider accepting my hon. Friend's Amendment?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The Solicitor-General for Scotland indicated dissent.

Mr. Willis: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman consider amending this in the House of Lords? He should not be frightened of all his English colleagues sitting behind him and of the Treasury over a mere £256. It is a most cowardly attitude on the part of the Government or the Scottish Office to say that they will accept that in this case the pension is to be reduced. It cannot be fair now to start considering reducing pensions.

Mr. Ross: We have been generous. With scarcely a word, certainly without an angry word, we have let the Lord Chancellor have his pension increased from £3,500 to £5,000. The Lord Chancellor caused considerable offence to us as members of the Labour Party not so long ago.
The Chairman of the Land Court is dedicated to the service of Scotland. I hope that the Leader of the Liberal Party will speak about this, because there was a time when the land was dear to the Liberal Party. The history of this post is very interesting. I do not desire to try the patience of hon. Members opposite, but I should be very happy to explain to the Solicitor-General for Scotland why the post was created in 1911. Is it not very silly that in a Bill which is proclaimed for a specific purpose the Government go out of their way to say that they do not like nine-sixteenths and that everything will look beautiful if it is one-half?

Mr. Willis: Down with uniformity.

Mr. Ross: The Government say that there will be no injustice to a man who is serving Scotland well, because they are preserving the nine-sixteenths pension for the present incumbent. If the Government had reduced the pension for this man, they would have been denying him justice. Why do the Government go out of their way in the subsection to ensure that only the present incumbent will be covered by the nine-sixteenths and thus saved from a reduction in pension? The necessity for uniformity will involve the next incumbent in a reduction of £256.

Mr. Willis: And 5s.

Mr. Ross: I do not bother with 5s., but it has come to that with this Government.
I appeal to the Solicitor-General for England, who must be getting worried about whether he will get his Bill and reach Report stage tonight. Will he give this matter more thought? He has plenty of opportunity to do it in another place. If he promises to do so, we will be glad to let him have the Clause.

Mr. Willis: Surely we are to be given some answer by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I can see that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Clark Hutchison) is dying to make a speech. If he does, he will probably convince the right hon. and learned Gentleman that something should be done. Although the Solicitor-General for Scotland has considered this, I do not think that he has done so in a mature fashion. He has not followed all the details. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, South, who always likes to see fair play and justice done, will not tolerate a position in which the pension of future Chairmen of the Land Court is to be reduced. I do not think that he understood the position, and I am sure he would like to say something about it. Will not the hon. and learned Gentleman give us a better answer?

The Solicitor-General: I do not like to intervene in a debate which concerns a Scottish office, but as hon. Members opposite made a specific appeal to me, as the Minister in charge of the Bill, I think that it is right to say this. I


do not feel justified in saying that we can reconsider this matter, because it might mislead the Committee into thinking that we regarded it as an open point. I think that it would be much more candid with the Committee to say that this is a matter to which we gave consideration in drafting the Bill. I think, therefore, that it would be wrong of me even to be as forthcoming as hon. Members have asked me to be.

Hon. Members: Divide.

Mr. Ross: I will tell hon. Members why I do not propose to divide the Committee. It is for the simple reason that the Amendment would not affect the matter which we have been pursuing in the last few minutes. In view of that, while thanking the Solicitor-General for his belated explanation, making clear to the people of Scotland the Government's intentions, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 10.—(INTERPRETATION.)

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 4, line 40, at the end to insert:
public general Act" includes a public general Act of the Parliament of Northern Ireland.
I trust that this Amendment will be less controversial than the last, because it is little more than a drafting Amendment. Hon. Members will see that Clause 4 (1) applies the provisions of the Clause to persons promoted to a First Schedule office from any other judicial office set out in Part I of the First Schedule to the House of Commons Disqualification Act, 1957, but only if the pension rights attaching to the last mentioned office, namely, a House of Commons Disqualification Act judicial office, are prescribed by a public general act or by any local act, scheme or arrangement which the Lord Chancellor may approve for the purpose of the Clause.
The words "public general Act" would, without the Amendment, mean an Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom, and would not include an Act of the Parliament of Northern Ireland. Therefore, without the Amendment, a county court judge in Northern Ireland might be promoted to the High Court

Bench in Northern Ireland, but he would attract the provisions of Clause 4 only provided that the Lord Chancellor approved the legislation governing the pensions rights attached to those offices. That would obviously be undesirable and would serve no useful purpose.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 11 and 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedules agreed to.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, considered; read the Third time and passed.

SEA FISH INDUSTRY BILL

Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Clause 9.—(AMENDMENTS AS TO CERTAIN PENALTIES.)

9.55 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Willey: I beg to move, in page 6, line 36, at the end, to insert:
and
(d) the words 'one hundred pounds or, in the case of a second or subsequent conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or a fine not exceeding two hundred pounds or both' shall be substituted for all the words following 'not exceeding' in subsection (3) of section seven of the Sea Fisheries Act, 1883, and the amendment made by this paragraph shall extend to the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man.
(2) Subsection (4) of section fifty-four of the Sea Fish Industry Act, 1938 (which increased the penalty imposed by the enactment mentioned in paragraph (d) of subsection (1) of this section) and, in subsection (5) of the said section fifty-four, the words 'of the last preceding subsection and' are hereby repealed".
I can safely be brief in moving the Amendment, as I have reason to believe that it will prove acceptable to the Government. In fact, I acknowledge some assistance in draftsmanship. I also would like to make acknowledgment to the Association of Sea Fisheries Committees, which has been making representations to the Government for some time. The Government have not fully met the points I had in mind, but I appreciate their reasons for perhaps not going as far as the Association would have liked us to go.
The Amendment will bring upon foreigners illegally fishing in our waters the same penalties as are brought by the Bill upon our own fishermen. That is a fair and proper thing to do. This will aid conservation of fish stocks in our own waters and will be of assistance to our inshore fishermen. For these reasons, I trust that the Government will be able to accept the Amendment, and to expedite our proceedings I say in anticipation that I am much obliged to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary for accepting it.

Mr. James H. Hoy: I beg to second the Amendment.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. J. B. Godber): I appreciate the cordial way in which the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) moved his Amendment. I was impressed with his confidence that he has put his ease so well and briefly that I should be able to accept it. I always try to help the hon. Member in any way I possibly can. On this occasion, I like the purpose of his Amendment and the way it is drafted. Therefore, I readily accept it in the way in which it has been proposed.
This is a helpful Amendment. It seeks to bring the penalties for poaching into line with the other penalties which we have brought up to date in the Bill. I am grateful to those, on both sides, who have brought this matter to the attention of the House. The hon. Member has done a useful service in bringing it forward and on behalf of the Government, I am happy to accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

10.0 p.m.

Mr. Godber: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
In asking the House to give the Bill a Third Reading, I should like to express my appreciation of the helpful contribution which hon. Members, on both sides, have made to the discussions which we have had, both in the House and in Committee. Those discussions have not, perhaps, resulted in any extensive amendment of the Bill, but they have been none the less valuable in

showing the great interest which the House as a whole takes in the welfare of the fishing industry and the broad measure of agreement which exists on how we can best help the industry to tackle the problems which confront it.
It is clear that we are all agreed that until we are in a position to decide upon our long-term policies in the light of the Report from the Fleck Committee, the present arrangements for financial assistance to the industry should continue. That is what we are providing for in the early part of the Bill.
Important and essential as the financial provisions of the Bill are, however, they are, nevertheless, concerned only with the next year or two. On the conservation side, the Bill is looking much further ahead. From the discussions we have had, it is evident that we all recognise the crucial importance of conservation. There must be continued international action in this field if we are to safeguard the natural resources on which the whole future of fishing, not only in this country, but elsewhere, ultimately depends.
The powers in the Bill, together with those already available under existing legislation, will enable us to take whatever action we consider necessary on conservation. Our hand will be immensely strengthened in securing the co-operation of other countries because, from the importance attached by both sides of the House to the whole subject of conservation, they can be in no doubt that this country puts conservation in the forefront of its fisheries policy.
In that connection, there is one matter particularly in regard to which hon. Members have expressed their anxieties: the question of industrial fishing. I should, therefore, like to take this opportunity of once again assuring the House that we are fully alive to the need for the utmost care in this direction. If we make use of the powers which the Bill provides to authorise industrial fishing—and we have taken no decision on this question—it will be only after full consultation with the industry and with our scientists, to determine what safeguards may be needed to ensure that we do nothing to endanger either the stocks of fish which are used for human food or their natural food supply.
It is opportune that the Bill should be before the House at this time, when some of the factors which may have important effects on the industry are still uncertain, some of them very uncertain. By its approval of the Bill, the House will show that it wholeheartedly endorses the support which we are giving to the industry, both at home and in our efforts to reach satisfactory solutions to those problems which can be dealt with only on the international plane and which it would be wrong for me to go into further tonight.

10.2 p.m.

Mr. Hoy: I support the Bill from this side of the House. I was interested in the Joint Parliamentary Secretary's reference to conservation. "Conservation" was the one word I attempted to have inserted during the Committee stage, but I received a firm assurance that it was out of order. It is strange, that assurance having been given, that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary should say that, of course, what matters more than anything else is conservation of our fish resources. In this respect, the Bill is a departure from anything we have had hitherto.
Conservation is tremendously important. We cannot, I think, over-estimate its importance, because conservation is vital to the industry when the catch is falling year by year. Indeed, if the Bill fails to deal with conservation, the industry can look forward to a not very prosperous future.
I was glad to hear his assurance, but I thought that the Minister might have said a little more about industrial fishing. It is, I think, important to emphasise on Third Reading that we are, for the first time in our legislation, making industrial fishing permissible. It is a dangerous enterprise. It is one thing which the industry of our country has been rather worried about, because of the considerable amount of industrial fishing which is taking place in other European countries. So far, this country has always resisted any attempt to introduce industrial fishing. The Bill represents a departure from that stand, and I am very grateful to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary for his assurance that no action will be taken in this respect unless or

until he has had full consultation with the industry itself.
The other provisions of the Bill are merely a continuation of previous legislation. They in no way make any changes in subsidies either for catching or for the supply of vessels. I thought that the Minister might have gone a little further and taken the opportunity to say a word about what progress has been made in our arrangements with other countries. All the provisions with regard to conservation do not take effect at all unless the Minister has assurances that other countries are taking similar steps. I think that that is right.

Mr. Godber: Mr. Godber indicated assent.

Mr. Hoy: That is what the Bill says.
On Second Reading, the Minister spoke about the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Convention, of which he had great hopes, and he went on to say that, while all the countries concerned, fourteen of them, had signed the Convention, Britain alone had ratified it. We were the first to do so. Have any other countries followed the lead given by Britain? We shall be interested to hear.
The Bill does not take us much further forward with regard to the future of British fishing. The industry itself is somewhat perturbed about the recent agreement with the Outer Seven. It wonders what the reactions will be, what will happen at the Second Conference on the Law of the Sea, what the Fleck Committee will produce by way of a report. Until these things are settled, we cannot really have any permanent legislation for the industry. For the time being, we support the Bill, but we support it knowing full well that it is a temporary Measure only to carry us over what might be a very difficult period for the industry.

10.7 p.m.

Mr. G. R. Howard (St. Ives): I agree with my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary when he says that it is good to find the great measure of agreement which exists in the House when we are discussing such a Measure as this. He said also that the Bill was to carry us on for the time being until we had the Fleck Committee's report. It is, after all, designed to help the fishing industry in an interim period.
The point raised by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy) is also a very real cause of worry to me. Under the new agreement, we are to have imparts of frozen fish, 24,000 tons, I believe. On Second Reading, I pointed out that this would establish a precedent. We have heard also that about £1 million worth of Russian tinned crab meat is to be imported into this country. At the same time, our crab and shell fishermen are not included under these subsidy arrangements. If the object of the Bill is to help our fishermen, it seems rather unfortunate that these things should happen at this time.
There has been a certain amount of talk lately about fishery vessels being detached to Iceland to protect our interests there. It has been said in certain quarters that this has meant that fishery vessels have not been able to protect our people round the coasts of England. I would like my hon. Friend who is to reply to assure us—I believe this to be so—that the vessels which are in use around the shores of Britain for fishery protection are not of the same type as those which go to Icelandic waters and do their very wonderful job there.
Since the Second Reading I have been in Washington, attending a conference, where we had the Icelandic delegates, and they, of course, raised publicly the vexed question of this dispute between our two countries. One was able to have private conversations with them, however. I can only hope that the Government are looking into this question with the idea that, perhaps, at the forthcoming Conference on the Law of the Sea, they may be able to make a new form of approach to the Icelanders to try to resolve this dispute. We cannot let it go on for ever. Unless we have a new approach we shall never get it settled, because they will never acquiesce in the present conditions. We must have a new approach to this problem, and I ask the Government to consider this most carefully.
My last point is that in helping the inshore fishermen I hope that the Govment will reconsider this day payment scheme as opposed to the ordinary stone subsidy. It can be worked, and it should be worked. It is the wish of the Sea Fisheries Committee, it is the wish of the White Fish Authority, and I cannot

impress upon the Government strongly enough that they must reconsider this, and I hope they will come to a different answer.

10.11 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Crosland: I wish to detain the House for only a few moments. First, I should like to echo the appeal made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for St. Ives (Mr. G. R. Howard) to the Government for a fresh and imaginative approach to the Icelandic problem in particular, and to the problem of fishing legislation in general, at this year's Conference on the Law of the Sea, because many of us feel that the approach at last year's conference was far from being imaginative to say the least.
We on this side of the House, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy) has said, welcome the conservation provisions in this Bill. As for the financial arrangements, we welcome them, and I think that hon. Members opposite do also, as an interim arrangement, but when the Joint Parliamentary Secretary speaks of the various uncertainties hanging over the industry which make it most vital to produce a permanent arrangement I very much hope he is not only thinking of the fact that the Fleck Committee is due to report, because the fact is that, apart from whether the Fleck Committee exists or not, the industry is going through a period of acute flux and uncertainty.
The industry is going through a period which began with the imposition of the 12-mile limit by Iceland, a period which continued this autumn with the concession on frozen fish in the Outer Seven Agreement, a period which will continue next March and April with the Conference on the Law of the Sea, a period which, towards the end of this year, will be marked not only by the publication of the Fleck Report, but, possibly, also by some difficulties that the industry may have with the Restrictive Practices Court. So, for a number of very diverse reasons, the industry's output is an extremely uncertain one.
I very much hope, therefore, that the Government, having rightly introduced this interim Measure, will not just sit back and wait for the Fleck Committee's proposals, but will consider the number of other factors affecting the industry,


which may very easily not come within the terms of reference of the Fleck Committee. Having said that, like my hon. Friend I welcome the Bill as the modest interim Measure it is.

10.13 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Gilmour Leburn): I should like to echo the words of my hon. Friend in expressing my appreciation to hon. Members on both sides of the House and in the Standing Committee for the helpful and useful contributions they have made during the passage of the Bill.
There are one or two specific points raised by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy) which I might just touch on shortly. I should like to emphasise that we attach the greatest importance to conservation. I think that we have reached a stage between us where we do not really quarrel about the use of this word, and if it was ruled out of order during the Committee stage I think that it was ruled out of order only in connection with Clause 4. I can only reiterate what my hon. Friend said about industrial fishing. We intend to "gang warily" on this, and, of course, we shall have consultations with the industry.
The hon. Member also asked what progress is being made with other countries in regard to the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Convention. As I understand, the position is that all the 13 countries have signed the Convention; so far we are the only country which has ratified it. We should remember that the Convention was signed only this year, and we hope that very shortly other countries will follow by ratifying it as we have done.
In reply to the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. G. R. Howard) about Russian tinned crab, we have to remember that this is not a new trade. It has been going on for a number of years. We take this crab in exchange for Russian imports of curred herrings from this country, and, more recently, quick-frozen white fish.
Having answered these points, I am sure that the Bill is welcomed on all sides of the House, and I hope that we shall now give it a Third reading.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

LORD HIGH COMMISSIONER (CHURCH OF SCOTLAND) BILL

Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered; read the Third time and passed.

PROFESSIONS SUPPLEMENTARY TO MEDICINE [MONEY]

Resolution reported,
That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for the establishment of a Council, boards, and disciplinary committees for certain professions supplementary to medicine, it is expedient to authorise—

(1) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenses of the Privy Council under the provisions of the said Act relating to default powers of the Privy Council; and
(2) the payment into the Exchequer of any sums received by the Privy Council under those provisions.

Resolution agreed to.

NATIONAL ASSISTANCE RECIPIENTS (RENTS)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Brooman-White.]

10.17 p.m.

Mr. H. Hynd: The subject which I want to bring to the attention of the House this evening arises from a practice amongst landlords of charging excessive rents to tenants when they know that they are in receipt of National Assistance. I put dawn a Question on this subject last month to the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance, and I was surprised and very disappointed to find that he passed it on to the Minister of Housing and Local Government. I protested about that to the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance, who, in reply, said that—
—as it appeared to relate to restraints on landlords in respect of rents charged by them, it quite clearly comes within the sphere of responsibilities of the Minister of Housing and Local Government and not within mine.
I hesitate to think that the Minister was just passing the buck in doing that, and I prefer to believe that it was a complete misunderstanding as to the reason for


my Question. Anyhow, the Question was answered by the Minister of Housing and Local Government on 23rd November. I had asked him—
—what precautions are taken against landlords charging excessive rents for decontrolled houses from people in receipt of National Assistance.
The Minister's answer was:
The value of a house does not depend upon the tenant's source of income.
I should very much doubt that. The Minister continued:
The fact that a tenant is in receipt of National Assistance does not enable a landlord to obtain a higher rent than he could otherwise do."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd November, 1959; Vol. 614, c. 9 and 10.]
As a matter of fact, that is exactly what happens. In the latest regulations of the National Assistance Board issued in June this year, it is stated that the allowances made in such cases may ordinarily be the full amount of net rent paid by the householder provided that it was related to the average fair rent in the district.
This loophole for landlords was foreseen when the Rent Bill was under discussion. Several Amendments were moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. H. Butler) and our former colleague, Mr. Blenkinsop. They pointed out what was likely to happen in this case. The normal tenant of a controlled house was entitled under the Rent Act to object to the maximum rent under that Act being charged if certain repairs were not carried out to the house, but in a house occupied by a tenant in receipt of National Assistance, the maximum rent under the Rent Act was paid automatically, because the tenant was not paying the rent; the National Assistance Board was paying it. Apparently the officers of the National Assistance Board had no instructions to inquire whether the necessary repairs had been done. Indeed, I believe that they were instructed not to make these inquiries and that the maximum rent was to be paid automatically.
The position is even worse in respect of decontrolled houses because apparently in that case the sky is the limit. If the landlord finds that a tenant, who is tied to the house for various reasons and is unable to move from it, is in receipt of National Assistance, he sets any figure he likes and says to the tenant, "Do not

worry. You do not have to pay it. The National Assistance Board pays it." The landlord gets his money.
That is a very unsatisfactory state of affairs. The most recent case with which I have had to deal is that of a widow whose rent was raised from 12s. to £2 a week as soon as the landlord discovered that she was in receipt of National Assistance.
What is the effect of this on the National Assistance Board? The 1957 Report of the National Assistance Board informs us that the average rent that year increased from 13s. 2d. to 15s. 4d. and that the Board paid 246,000 extra rent grants, with an average increase of 5s. 3d., because of the Rent Act. The 1958 Report informed us that the average rent was raised again, this time from 15s. 4d. to 18s. 9d.
It should be remembered that this is normally the poorest type of house property. The Board says in the 1958 Report that 300,000 allowances were increased for rent, with an average increase of 6s. 8d. The Board is paying full rent in 1,067,000 cases and part rent in 169,000 other cases. It is therefore paying rent allowances in 1,236,000 cases.
From what I have said it is evident that in many of these cases this is nothing but a bonus for landlords. Where those landlords are taking advantage of it, I would describe them as unscrupulous landlords. I want to ask the Minister what instructions the National Assistance Board's officers have in this matter. Is there any limit to the rent which they pay for a decontrolled house? Have they any instructions about repairs in the case of controlled houses, or do they just accept the evidence of the rent book and pay that amount automatically? If the answer to the last question is "Yes", will the Minister consider revising the instructions which those officers have in this matter?
It is most unusual for an hon. Member on this side of the House to offer the Minister something which will save money. We are not allowed on the Adjournment to suggest legislation, but often the matters raised from this side of the House would involve some expenditure. In this case it would mean, I suggest, an economy if the matter were


dealt with properly. It would mean either a saving of money to the National Assistance Board or, perhaps, the Board could use that money in order to give more relief to people who need it rather than money to these landlords who are taking advantage of the present position.

10.25 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance (Miss Patricia Hornsby-Smith): I have had on many occasions the opportunity of replying to debates raised by the hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. H. Hynd) but I must confess that I have rarely found myself so completely in disagreement with some of the statements and, if I may say so, misapprehensions which he has voiced tonight.
I am sorry if the hon. Gentleman felt that he was unfairly treated about his Question but, with great respect, the key phrase in it is:
… What precautions are taken against landlords charging excessive rents …
and that is a matter over which the National Assistance Board has no authority. Quite rightly, it went to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government. I think that the hon. Member knows my right hon. Friend well enough to know that he does not find it necessary to "pass the buck". He is always ready to answer for his Department when the occasion arises.
The hon. Member raised two quite separate issues. The first is the level of rent fixed by the landlord and the conditions under which he does it, which is properly a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government. The second, and quite separate, matter is the very important issue of the level of the allowance which the National Assistance Board makes towards the rent of a person on National Assistance. As he knows, the Rent Act, 1957, freed from control all dwellings with a rateable value of over £40 in London and Scotland and over £30 elsewhere, all owner-occupied houses and all new tenancies, the last being the category that is relevant to the case which the hon. Member has raised.
Rents of decontrolled property, however, could not be increased before 6th October, 1958, except under a three-year agreement. On the initiative of the Board, a record was kept until 1958 to see what impact the provisions of the Rent Act had on rent allowances paid under National Assistance. I cannot give the hon. Member figures up to this date, but the figures then, which cover the operative period, give a fair analysis and I have no reason to believe that they would be substantially different in form today. At that time a total of 1,100,000 rent allowances were being paid: 368,000 tenants were in council property not subject to rent control; and these rents had varied from time to time. This leaves over 700,000. The total number of cases recorded, over the whole period in which increases under the Rent Act had been reported in respect of decontrolled accommodation, was only 4,000. By far the majority of the increases which were allowed by the Board have occurred within the statutory limits applied by the Rent Act to controlled premises.
In the case mentioned by the hon. Member, the lady is aged 30 and has two children. She had been living with a man who was a tenant of the premises. Presumably he contributed to her maintenance and was at the time the controlled tenant of the house. In March, 1958, he left her, but the landlord allowed her to remain in the premises although she had no direct title to the tenancy. But her tenancy, being a new one after July, 1957, was thereafter not subject to control. The rent remained at much the same level, which was 13s. 8d. a week, until October this year, when it was increased to £2. The dwelling is a terraced house of four rooms.
The hon. Member will appreciate that, whereas the National Assistance Board has responsibility for the rent allowances which it grants, it can have no responsibility for nor authority over the rent which the landlord charges. In the circumstances of this case, the Board considered the £2 rent to be too high, and it advised the lady to that effect. But to give her reasonable time to find alternative accommodation, and in accordance with the sympathetic manner in which the Board deals with these cases


—something of which I am sure the hon. Member approves—it undertook to allow her rent at £2 a week for a period of four weeks while she looked for alternative accommodation. She found it well within that period, in Haslingdon, at 16s. a week.
In view of what I am sure were the sincere misconceptions of the hon. Member about the manner in which the Board pays these allowances I should like to give evidence of another example of the Board's practice.

Mr. H. Hynd: I am sorry that the hon. Lady thought it necessary to give details of the case I have mentioned. I carefully refrained from mentioning any details of the domestic situation. I mentioned the case only as an example. Incidentally, the information she has given me is not the same information as I got from the local office at the time. Can she say whether any efforts are made to query a rent of that kind?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: If the hon. Member will let me develop my argument he will find that I am not dodging any of his questions. I want to give an example of the manner in which the Board deals with matters of this kind.
Recently, a case for possession came before the Salford County Court, and there were some extremely critical notices in the Manchester and Salford Press about the high rent of 34s. being charged for one room. The merits of the case before the court are not my concern, but I am concerned with the widely publicised allegations that the National Assistance Board made available to this family the full amount of 34s. for this one room, when, in fact, the Board's officers considered this rent far too high and assessed the accommodation and allowed only £1 a week for rent.
There is no evidence that the Board blindly accepts any rent charged. Its officers are instructed to consider whether a rent is a reasonable one for the purposes of making an allowance. It is not true to say that its officers make no inquiries, far less to say that they are instructed not to do so. The Board's officers do not accept and provide for high rents in respect of either controlled or decontrolled property without question, though they may, as in the case

raised by the hon. Member, have to provide a high rent for a limited period to avoid hardship. No one would suggest that, at a moment's notice, a recipient of National Assistance should be expected to find alternative accommodation.
Nor does the Board meet increases under the Rent Act which are obviously improper, or where the property is obviously in a very bad state of repair. In the few cases which have come to notice it has advised the tenant about the remedies open to him and where to get advice. It cannot, however, set itself up as a technical adviser, or encroach on the functions of the local authority. Its main concern, whether the rent is controlled or decontrolled, must be to ensure that persons dependent on assistance are in a position to pay a reasonable amount for their accommodation. If the rent is beyond what can be considered reasonable for the individual applicant and the district in which he lives he will ordinarily be asked to make other arrangements as soon as possible. If necessary, the rent may be provided in full for a limited period while he is looking for some alternative. The Board has no information to suggest that excessive rents charged to its applicants in decontrolled property are becoming a problem.
The Board's annual report for 1958 shows that, out of 1,100,000 householder applicants renting accommodation, 12,000 were paying rents of 50s. a week or more. Most of these were probably in respect of furnished accommodation, and in high rent areas like London and the seaside, and the number will also include cases where a very large family requires considerable accommodation. Twenty-nine per cent. of National Assistance tenants are in local authority dwellings. As the hon. Member knows, the Landlord and Tenant Act runs until 1961, and was designed to protect existing tenants of decontrolled property who were unable to reach an agreement with their landlords. In such cases the tenant has to be taken to court before he can be evicted, and the court may in certain conditions suspend a possession order and prescribe the rent payable.
The number of cases of National Assistance applicants who have been so taken to court under the Act to date is 350. Nearly 200 of these have found alternative accommodation after being told by the National Assistance Board's


officers that the rent was considered excessive or that the accommodation was not in sufficient repair to warrant it. About 20 have ceased to receive National Assistance altogether. More than 100 oases are at present unresolved, in that the period of suspension granted by the court has not yet expired, and to that extent they are under the court's jurisdiction. There is still a limit upon the rent which they can be called upon to pay.
I hope, therefore, that I have been able to prove to the hon. Gentleman that the Board's officers do have instructions; they do make investigations; and within their powers they see to it that excessive rents are not paid, either on the basis of excessive rents alone, or where the premises are in a bad state of repair; and, further, within their responsibilities,

they give all the advice that they can in directing members of the public to seek the remedies available to them by going to the local authorities.
In fairness to the officers who carry out this work I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that certain of the statements that he made tonight were not in fact the practice or the habit of the National Assistance Board.

Mr. H. Hynd: I am very glad to have that information. I hope that the hon. Lady will accept my assurance that a lot of the information that she has given is new, and I hope that it will become widely known.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-four minutes to Eleven o'clock.